3 ms·
The result of this is that users, especially any the government might be interested in, would use the services that don't keep any information. Which in general
by AnthonyMouse 2y ago
The result of this is that users, especially any the government might be interested in, would use the services that don't keep any information. Which in general is good -- services shouldn't be keeping data for no reason -- but sometimes there's a reason. Maybe an ordinary user would like to have a cloud backup, but not if it could create legal liability (and then their lawyers order them not to do it).
So we should be asking if this makes sense. If the government can snatch the data from third party services without a warrant then the people interesting to them will use the ones that don't store it, and then the government can't get the data with only a subpoena anyway. They may not even be able to get it with a warrant. But it also means that people can't have any features that require a trusted third party if they're concerned about legal liability from e.g. prosecutors taking things out of context, which should be everybody because they do that all the time.