Comment by hugh-avherald
2 days 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.
message retention has literally NEVER been used as incrimination in a court of law. So you are wrong.
Umm, isn’t this related? https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/26/24141801/ftc-amazon-antit...
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.
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.
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.
No. That's a civil discovery matter.
1 reply →
Ephemeral messaging is not a crime.
The retention time can be set by individual conversation not just the whole app.