Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GDPR says it's 30 days with a 2 month extension. This allows for having safe soft deletion and backup retention policies without running afoul of it.
Do you have a link for that?
Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
481–490 of 514 posts
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that time period is usually limited to 30 days, with an additional 30 day extension allowed if you contact the person and tell them you need more time. You can’t just declare that it take years to delete data, GDPR sets reasonable limits on how long a company can delay true deletion.
Even if the company just issued you an invoice, that makes it obligated by law to hold onto your PII for the next 5 years - and GDPR of course has an exception for that.
Sure, but that data doesn’t fall under your right-to-be-forgotten, so any obligations that apply to the right-to-be-forgotten are irrelevant.
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, less code means less bugs, but go nuts. I'm just saying that the database is part of the stack. You wouldn't avoid Ruby features "just in case we stop using Ruby" - so why would we avoid using database features? It's up to you how best to assemble the features from your stack. There is a reason we avoided database features in the 90's, which was to avoid database vendor lock-in. This was almost entirely a finan…
The use case for using the database here is overblown. I've never experienced of heard of anyone using a view for the users table. I suppose it may exist in the wild somewhere. I wouldn't avoid Ruby features because the applications I develop are in Ruby and it would require a complete rewrite anyway. I avoid the database because there are development speed advantages to using Rails features. And everything works tog…
> I've never experienced of heard of anyone using a view for the users table
Well, now you have heard of people doing this.
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for that insight. It's an interesting solution to use per-user encryption for that. Don't you have the same problems all over again with respect to preserving access to user specific data? I.e. needing key backups for business continuity, but needing to wipe those keys for deletion requests.
Per user encryption doesn't work in real systems. These have been implemented for several decades and no one uses them because they have pathologically terrible scalability and performance. The simple act of requiring encryption of individual user data forces the use of extremely suboptimal data structures relative to what would be used in the non-encrypted case. A single AES encryption block is 16 bytes; internal st…
"I've not seen this in real systems, therefore it can't exist" ?
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS SQL Server has a fun feature called temporal tables that does some of this https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/ta...
This is very interesting! I haven't used this feature, is it possible to twist this to find a time associated with a table state so that you can then query the table at that time (allowing you to answer a question like what was the value of X the last time Y was true)?
You could replay the change feed from CRDB into Materialize and catch the timestamp (s) at which some query results pop out, using an incremental query in what is basically a linear search.
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry!
I think lawyers probably miss a lot of these technicalities (which explains why they can require something as technically unreasonable as Schrems II), but I just wonder if someone more technical can actually push for something like that, to win themselves some questionable points, in the name of improving privacy.
What's the unreasonable thing? Not having your data HQ in a place vulnerable to unrelated government overreach?
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know how to read usernames?
Yes. Your point being what.
I am not the person you originally replied to but you (again) commented like I was. My comment was about how your comment erroneously targets the wrong person because you thought you were replying to one person when you were replying to another. You did it again in your previous comment hence my serious question.
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#488Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see a claim that deletion had to be "the very second the [delete] button is pressed". This is the actual text of the law[1]: > The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay There is a one month limit of the right of access [2] and right to be informed [3], which flow into some of the articles of the law; and certain…
The user has to explicitly request the erasure.
Yes, they do that by pressing the delete button on their side (and so forth). This is covered in the first line "The data subject shall have the right to obtain".
If you want to go to court and argue that the user should've know that pressing a big red button with "DELETE!" on it really means soft delete, be my guest.
Re: Soft deletion probably isn't worth it
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Your point being what.
I am not the person you originally replied to but you (again) commented like I was. My comment was about how your comment erroneously targets the wrong person because you thought you were replying to one person when you were replying to another. You did it again in your previous comment hence my serious question.
It doesn't matter, it was advice for all.