3 ms·
Setting a retention time out is playing with fire. If the police get ahold of the other party's device, and present an exhibit which they say contains the true
by hugh-avherald 2y ago
Setting a retention time out is playing with fire. If the police get ahold of the other party's device, and present an exhibit which they say contains the true conversation, you could be worse off than if you retained the conversation. The fact that you have since deleted it could be incriminating.
In some jurisdiction, yes, legally, such evidence might not be probative, but you might still convicted because of it.
- fdb345 2y agomessage retention has literally NEVER been used as incrimination in a court of law. So you are wrong.
- sangeeth96 2y agoUmm, isn’t this related? https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antitrust-signal-ephemeral-messaging-evidence https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antit...
- nickburns 2y agoNo. That's a civil discovery matter.
- fdb345 2y agoIts also a private business directive not a law
- dvtkrlbs 2y agoI don't think so. Corporate communication is bound by different laws and you have way higher burden of evidence in case of legal requests. I don't think this creates a precedent for personal communications.
- bunderbunder 2y agoThis isn't Amazon getting in trouble for implementation of a routine records retention policy. It's Amazon getting in trouble for violating a document retention mandate related to an ongoing lawsuit.
- the_other 2y agoYes, but if I’m reading it right, Amazon staff were already inder instruxtion to retain and share data relevant to an ongoing investigation. They were aware of the process and, if the article is to be believed, worked against the instructions. That’s quite different from turning disappearing messages on when you’re not explicitly under insteuctions to keep records.
- vuln 2y agoThe retention time can be set by individual conversation not just the whole app.
- nickburns 2y agoEphemeral messaging is not a crime.