3 ms·
On the one hand you're saying it can't be done without some whistleblower turning up, on the other hand you think that its possible to happen accidentally. It'
by 411111111111111 3y ago
On the one hand you're saying it can't be done without some whistleblower turning up, on the other hand you think that its possible to happen accidentally.
It's kinda either/or. It's either possible that someone can get full admin privileges and deletes it off-the-record or they've got enough safeguards in place that the accidental deletion isn't possible either.
- andsoitis 3y agoIt seems very reasonable that 47 million messages were deleted from 8,700 mail boxes by accident, but it seems like a stretch of the imagination to say this resulted in the intentional deletion of the EXACT evidence that they were being subpoenaed for, without forgetting to delete SOME of the evidence.
- 411111111111111 3y agoWhat? according to the article, all emails were deleted in that given timeframe with the excuse "they thought it would be impossible to delete records that were still required to be kept by regulation" I don't think your argument works unless the article is wrong.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agonobody is claiming intentional deletion of the EXACT records being subpoenaed and only those records, and the article makes clear that isn't what happened the thing we're discussing is deleting A LOT of records which INCLUDE the ones being subpoenaed, which is obviously easily possible, intentionally or otherwise so, no stretch of the imagination required