4 ms·

message retention has literally NEVER been used as incrimination in a court of law. So you are wrong.

• sangeeth96 2y ago
  Umm, 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 ago
    No. That's a civil discovery matter.
    • fdb345 2y ago
      Its also a private business directive not a law
  • dvtkrlbs 2y ago
    I 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 ago
    This 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 ago
    Yes, 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.