• WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    so they never should have persisted that data to begin with, right? and if they didn’t persist it, they wouldn’t need to retain it

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 minutes ago

      I mean, it’s more complicated than that.

      Of course, data is persisted somewhere, in a transient fashion, for the purpose of computation. Especially when using event based or asynchronous architectures.

      And then promptly deleted or otherwise garbage collected in some manner (either actively or passively, usually passively). It could be in transitory memory, or it could be on high speed SSDs during any number of steps.

      It’s also extremely common for data storage to happen on a caching layer level and not violate requirements that data not be retained since those caches are transitive. Let’s not mention the reduced rate “bulk” non-syncronous APIs, Which will use idle, cheap, computational power to do work in a non-guaranteed amount of time. Which require some level of storage until the data can be processed.

      A court order forcing them to start storing this data is a problem. It doesn’t mean they already had it stored in an archival format somewhere, it means they now have to store it somewhere for long term retention.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 minutes ago

        I think it’s debatable whether storing in volatile memory is persisting, but ok. And by debatable I mean depends on what is happening exactly.

        A court order forcing them to no longer garbage, collect or delete data used for processing is a problem.

        what, are they going to do memory dumps before every free() call?