5 ms·
I don’t think timestamps themselves are PII, they tell you when but not who. I think the problem is legal is demanding they edit the files to remove names of f
by skissane 3y ago
I don’t think timestamps themselves are PII, they tell you when but not who.
I think the problem is legal is demanding they edit the files to remove names of former employees, since that is PII - and doing so destroys the timestamps (and can damage the file format if not done carefully with respect to encodings etc)
Simple solution: upload a DIR of the original floppies. That will tell us the original timestamps, without revealing that PII
Advanced solution: someone create a toolkit for redacting disk images which records the exact byte locations redacted. The whole “former employee names are PII so we have to censor them” thing is a bit stupid, but sometimes you get further by doing the best you can within legal’s constraints instead of fighting them
- theoldlove 3y agoSeems weird to remove the names of former employees. What’s sensitive about that information? In lots of other industries people insist on proper credits acknowledging their work.
- tomjakubowski 3y agoPersonally I'd rather disavow at least 50% of the code I've shipped than take credit for it
- skissane 3y agoAll it takes is one person in legal over-reacting And getting this done is relying on the good will of the corporation, a lot of other corps will just say point-blank “No way”. The risk with pushing back against legal, even if they are overreacting, is the end result could be no more releases like this
- 1970-01-01 3y agoIt was common for MS to include credits, but only as an Easter egg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Easter_eggs_in_Microsoft_products#Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Easter_eggs_in_Microso...