6 ms·

It's was a niche project for a client that didn't want it developed further. Not nearly as outrageous as the BBC taping over their archives to save buying new

It's was a niche project for a client that didn't want it developed further. Not nearly as outrageous as the BBC taping over their archives to save buying new tapes. They have a page listing all the justifications, some of which are quite weak: https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/bbc-archives--wiped-missing-and-lost/z4nkvk7 https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/bbc-archives--wiped-missing-an...

jugg1es 6y ago
well that escalated quickly lol
skissane 6y ago
I remember reading a certain company (not my current employer)'s data retention policy issued by their legal department. It had a schedule for destroying all business records. Product source code was in there as a business record – to be destroyed N years after end of support. Made me want to cry. I hope they don't actually do what their legal department tells them to.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  If hypothetically, someone were to take a copy of that code just before the business destroyed it, they could do almost whatever they liked with it, because the original business wouldn't be able to prove it was stolen from them.
  - skissane 6y ago
    Let me use Microsoft as an example. (And, I'd rather not identify the company in question, but I can say that it wasn't Microsoft – I have absolutely zero information on what Microsoft's data retention policies might be.) Suppose Microsoft's policy was to destroy all copies of the Windows 3.0 source code. Having followed that policy, they have no copies left. Now suppose an ex-Microsoft employee has a copy of the Windows 3.0 source code in their possession, and decides to distribute it. You really think that Microsoft couldn't prove in court that said source code is in fact the Windows 3.0 source code, even if they no longer possessed any copies of it themselves?
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > I'd rather not identify the company in question, but I can say that it wasn't Microsoft – I have absolutely zero information on what Microsoft's data retention policies might be. While earlier things may have been lost, Microsoft operates a Microsoft museum. Anything they have today is pretty likely to be intentionally preserved.
      - mikestew 6y ago
        It's been fifteen years since I've last darkened MSFT's doorsteps, but they had an internal server that had everything back to DOS 2.0, IIRC. Now, source code I cannot say with any real knowledge, but the bits were (and I'm guessing, still are) there.
    - jojobas 6y ago
      How do you suppose they would they do it, especially if all references that the code being Windows 3.0 were removed or replaced with something else?
      - jerf 6y ago
        All sorts of ways. The easiest one would just be to prove that the person in question didn't have the many thousands of programmer-years at their disposal necessary to make something so large and therefore the only possible source is the one entity that ever did, and used it to make Windows. Since "some guy who leaked Windows" is obviously not in possession of that sort of programmer-power, it's a pretty open-and-shut case. That one is so obviously going to win that speculating further isn't worth much, but there's a lot of other ways we could prove it too based on architectural similarities to the existing binary code (which I presume is not wiped off the face of the Earth), but this one, while quite sufficient to prove the case as well, is more abstract and prone to internet snipers trying to prove their smarts by quibbling about endless leaves while missing the obvious location and sheer mind-blowing size of the forest. But we don't have to go here, because the previous paragraph would do just fine.
        6y ago
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I sincerely hope that you do not ever put that to the test and I think you should stay miles away from advising people on legal matters. To put it bluntly: you are clueless about this stuff.
  - asah 6y ago
    Um, just compare hashes...
    - 0xffff2 6y ago
      Hashes of what?
- technicalbard 6y ago
  I know companies that live in legal fear of discovery and destroy lots of things that have potential data-mining value. Imagine a firm that deletes all email more than 365 days old...
  - kjs3 6y ago
    365 days? Luxury. Try 90 days. Not kidding.
imhoguy 6y ago
There are bigger fails too - Apollo 11 tapes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
- est31 6y ago
  Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_films
clappski 6y ago
At least they're pretty honest about it though; > The idea that some recordings were important to keep for longer term re-use or historical reasons developed gradually and inconsistently across the BBC. > A key recommendation was that a requirement to keep archives was included in the BBC Charter and this was done for the first time in 1981. Although collections of recordings had built up by this time, before this there was no regulatory or legal requirement to keep archives in the BBC. > In a large and complex organisation like the BBC, the processes for making and managing recordings after broadcast were not always well defined, resourced or secure. This sometimes led to programmes not being received, or technical faults not spotted at an early stage. In some cases – Local Radio is one example - central departments had no remit to manage the archive, and with scant resources to spare in production teams, selecting output for archiving could be limited and rely on the personal interest of staff leading to some great collections, but patchy coverage in the archive.
hedora 6y ago
Nigeria found some Doctor Who episodes recently: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/oct/11/doctor-who-lost-episodes-found-download-bbc https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/oct/11/doctor-...

jugg1es 6y ago

well that escalated quickly lol

skissane 6y ago

I remember reading a certain company (not my current employer)'s data retention policy issued by their legal department. It had a schedule for destroying all business records. Product source code was in there as a business record – to be destroyed N years after end of support. Made me want to cry. I hope they don't actually do what their legal department tells them to.

londons_explore 6y ago
If hypothetically, someone were to take a copy of that code just before the business destroyed it, they could do almost whatever they liked with it, because the original business wouldn't be able to prove it was stolen from them.
- skissane 6y ago
  Let me use Microsoft as an example. (And, I'd rather not identify the company in question, but I can say that it wasn't Microsoft – I have absolutely zero information on what Microsoft's data retention policies might be.) Suppose Microsoft's policy was to destroy all copies of the Windows 3.0 source code. Having followed that policy, they have no copies left. Now suppose an ex-Microsoft employee has a copy of the Windows 3.0 source code in their possession, and decides to distribute it. You really think that Microsoft couldn't prove in court that said source code is in fact the Windows 3.0 source code, even if they no longer possessed any copies of it themselves?
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > I'd rather not identify the company in question, but I can say that it wasn't Microsoft – I have absolutely zero information on what Microsoft's data retention policies might be. While earlier things may have been lost, Microsoft operates a Microsoft museum. Anything they have today is pretty likely to be intentionally preserved.
    - mikestew 6y ago
      It's been fifteen years since I've last darkened MSFT's doorsteps, but they had an internal server that had everything back to DOS 2.0, IIRC. Now, source code I cannot say with any real knowledge, but the bits were (and I'm guessing, still are) there.
  - jojobas 6y ago
    How do you suppose they would they do it, especially if all references that the code being Windows 3.0 were removed or replaced with something else?
    - jerf 6y ago
      All sorts of ways. The easiest one would just be to prove that the person in question didn't have the many thousands of programmer-years at their disposal necessary to make something so large and therefore the only possible source is the one entity that ever did, and used it to make Windows. Since "some guy who leaked Windows" is obviously not in possession of that sort of programmer-power, it's a pretty open-and-shut case. That one is so obviously going to win that speculating further isn't worth much, but there's a lot of other ways we could prove it too based on architectural similarities to the existing binary code (which I presume is not wiped off the face of the Earth), but this one, while quite sufficient to prove the case as well, is more abstract and prone to internet snipers trying to prove their smarts by quibbling about endless leaves while missing the obvious location and sheer mind-blowing size of the forest. But we don't have to go here, because the previous paragraph would do just fine.
      - 6y ago
- jacquesm 6y ago
  I sincerely hope that you do not ever put that to the test and I think you should stay miles away from advising people on legal matters. To put it bluntly: you are clueless about this stuff.
- asah 6y ago
  Um, just compare hashes...
  - 0xffff2 6y ago
    Hashes of what?
technicalbard 6y ago
I know companies that live in legal fear of discovery and destroy lots of things that have potential data-mining value. Imagine a firm that deletes all email more than 365 days old...
- kjs3 6y ago
  365 days? Luxury. Try 90 days. Not kidding.

imhoguy 6y ago

There are bigger fails too - Apollo 11 tapes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

est31 6y ago
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_films

clappski 6y ago

At least they're pretty honest about it though; > The idea that some recordings were important to keep for longer term re-use or historical reasons developed gradually and inconsistently across the BBC. > A key recommendation was that a requirement to keep archives was included in the BBC Charter and this was done for the first time in 1981. Although collections of recordings had built up by this time, before this there was no regulatory or legal requirement to keep archives in the BBC. > In a large and complex organisation like the BBC, the processes for making and managing recordings after broadcast were not always well defined, resourced or secure. This sometimes led to programmes not being received, or technical faults not spotted at an early stage. In some cases – Local Radio is one example - central departments had no remit to manage the archive, and with scant resources to spare in production teams, selecting output for archiving could be limited and rely on the personal interest of staff leading to some great collections, but patchy coverage in the archive.

hedora 6y ago

Nigeria found some Doctor Who episodes recently: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/oct/11/doctor-who-lost-episodes-found-download-bbc https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/oct/11/doctor-...