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.
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.