5 ms·

That may or may not be legal. IANAL but telling a user that his/her data has been deleted when in fact it still sits on the server could be regulation violating

by jd007 13y ago

That may or may not be legal. IANAL but telling a user that his/her data has been deleted when in fact it still sits on the server could be regulation violating or downright illegal depending on where you are. Of course it would probably also depend on what your product ToS says and the nature of the data being deleted.

sgdesign 13y ago
Isn't that exactly what Facebook and every other social network does though?
- kamakazizuru 13y ago
  Yes, and they keep getting flack from various regulatory authorities for things like that. Facebook or anyone doing something that isn't legal doesn't make it legal.
- xerophtye 13y ago
  They don't even do a good job of hiding it :/ the URL of the image stays the same and it is still accessible through the URL. All they do is remove its link from their interfaces...
smooj 13y ago
I'm not sure about the legal implications either, but it would be interesting to know. From a totally different angle it might cause backlash from users if they felt betrayed by an action not actually doing what they thought it would do. You'd have to balance the conflicting desires to be able to undo things and have actions do what they say they will do. Maybe a 'trash can' or 'archive' system is the way to go.
mcphage 13y ago
> IANAL but telling a user that his/her data has been deleted when in fact it still sits on the server could be regulation violating or downright illegal depending on where you are Where on Earth do you think labeling a button "Delete" is a legally binding specification with an incredibly specific required implementation?!
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Probably a place on Earth that legally frowns upon deceptive business practices, false advertising, and the like.
- elithrar 13y ago
  > Where on Earth do you think labeling a button "Delete" is a legally binding specification with an incredibly specific required implementation?! It may not be "legally binding", but it certainly is a big risk: look at all the hoo-ha when (e.g.) Facebook/Adobe/etc. don't really delete your profile. Note that I'm not saying they should/shouldn't: I'm arguing that there's many cases where indicating something is deleted (and not deleting it) can cause user outrage.
  - mcphage 13y ago
    > I'm arguing that there's many cases where indicating something is deleted (and not deleting it) can cause user outrage. Oh, definitely; that's a great way to piss people off. But jd007 specifically mentioned that it might be "downright illegal", and that's what I was criticizing.
- dandelany 13y ago
  EU member states are subject to the (soon to be rewritten) Data Protection Directive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_95/46/EC_on_the_protection_of_personal_data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_95/46/EC_on_the_prote... In the UK, for example, this is implemented by the Data Protection Act 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998 The guidelines for complying with the DPA talk a bit about deletion here: http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/information_standards/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Practical_application/deleting_personal_data.ashx http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_... "If you offer users the option to delete personally identifiable information uploaded by them, the deletion must be real i.e. the content should not be recoverable in any way, for example, by accessing a URL from that site." In fact the DPA takes it even further by requiring that personal data "shall not be kept for longer than is necessary" ie. you are supposed to delete any personally identifying data once you're done using it for it's original purpose (or another legal use). Granted, I imagine it would be pretty hard to bring a case against a company for either of these things, and I can't tell if the former is legally binding or just a "guideline," but it's not outside the realm of possibility...

by jd007 13y ago

sgdesign 13y ago

Isn't that exactly what Facebook and every other social network does though?

kamakazizuru 13y ago
Yes, and they keep getting flack from various regulatory authorities for things like that. Facebook or anyone doing something that isn't legal doesn't make it legal.
xerophtye 13y ago
They don't even do a good job of hiding it :/ the URL of the image stays the same and it is still accessible through the URL. All they do is remove its link from their interfaces...

smooj 13y ago

I'm not sure about the legal implications either, but it would be interesting to know. From a totally different angle it might cause backlash from users if they felt betrayed by an action not actually doing what they thought it would do. You'd have to balance the conflicting desires to be able to undo things and have actions do what they say they will do. Maybe a 'trash can' or 'archive' system is the way to go.

mcphage 13y ago

> IANAL but telling a user that his/her data has been deleted when in fact it still sits on the server could be regulation violating or downright illegal depending on where you are Where on Earth do you think labeling a button "Delete" is a legally binding specification with an incredibly specific required implementation?!

nitrogen 13y ago
Probably a place on Earth that legally frowns upon deceptive business practices, false advertising, and the like.
elithrar 13y ago
> Where on Earth do you think labeling a button "Delete" is a legally binding specification with an incredibly specific required implementation?! It may not be "legally binding", but it certainly is a big risk: look at all the hoo-ha when (e.g.) Facebook/Adobe/etc. don't really delete your profile. Note that I'm not saying they should/shouldn't: I'm arguing that there's many cases where indicating something is deleted (and not deleting it) can cause user outrage.
- mcphage 13y ago
  > I'm arguing that there's many cases where indicating something is deleted (and not deleting it) can cause user outrage. Oh, definitely; that's a great way to piss people off. But jd007 specifically mentioned that it might be "downright illegal", and that's what I was criticizing.
dandelany 13y ago
EU member states are subject to the (soon to be rewritten) Data Protection Directive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_95/46/EC_on_the_protection_of_personal_data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_95/46/EC_on_the_prote... In the UK, for example, this is implemented by the Data Protection Act 1998: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998 The guidelines for complying with the DPA talk a bit about deletion here: http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/information_standards/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Practical_application/deleting_personal_data.ashx http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_... "If you offer users the option to delete personally identifiable information uploaded by them, the deletion must be real i.e. the content should not be recoverable in any way, for example, by accessing a URL from that site." In fact the DPA takes it even further by requiring that personal data "shall not be kept for longer than is necessary" ie. you are supposed to delete any personally identifying data once you're done using it for it's original purpose (or another legal use). Granted, I imagine it would be pretty hard to bring a case against a company for either of these things, and I can't tell if the former is legally binding or just a "guideline," but it's not outside the realm of possibility...