3 ms·
It's a completely reasonable reading of their message to assume that the “possible” in “whenever possible” roughly means “legal”. I don't think any reasonable r
by paulgb 3y ago
It's a completely reasonable reading of their message to assume that the “possible” in “whenever possible” roughly means “legal”. I don't think any reasonable reading of it means to imply that they are willing to violate federal law.
- avgcorrection 3y agoFair point.
- Mystery-Machine 3y agoOke way to protect user data is to NOT ask/collect data in the first place. What's the need of person's full name and address for? Maybe I'm missing the point, but I see zero reasons to have this data in the first place.
- avgcorrection 3y agoThat’s the best principle to follow. Agreed.
- masto 3y agoIf you read the whole thing, it's pretty clear they don't have the person's full name and address, and thus did not provide it. They do mention that it will be needed for organizations that sign up for billing when that feature becomes available. Other than possibly IP addresses, it seems like the only information they had available to disclose was close to the bare minimum needed to operate the service.
- dubbel 3y agoYou are probably reading what data the DoJ requested. Further down in the blogpost (in the "Details" section) they state that they don't have a lot of the data requested and exactly what kind of data they could and did provide. Addresses are not requested by PyPI.
- junon 3y agoAnd they state very clearly they don't have this information. In fact, PyPi seems to retain a very reasonable set of information, strictly related to the service itself. I found this disclosure to be entirely refreshing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HelloNurse 3y agosudo give us user data