For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | more Jerry2's commentsregister

The (consumer) company I used to work for also allowed their customers to "delete" their data. Deletion was implemented as a boolean filed in the database "deleted - true/false'. We called it "soft deletion". And why was it implemented like this? It's because actually deleting data is hard. There is no single database and the data is distributed across many servers. It's also backed up in different places. Running the delete operation can be extremely costly and can also create service interruptions and data integrity issues. I think there was a script that was supposed to actually delete the entries but it was not run very often and was there for legal and compliance issues.

Just remember that when you request to delete some data on the internet, it doesn't actually get deleted (right away anyway). The best way to deal with this is not to give random sites your real information in the first place. However, that can be difficult or impossible when dealing with government, financial institutions or shopping sites.

Edit: And just to address questions below, the actual delete script was not run daily. I don't know how often it was run (I was not an SRE) but I presume it was run at least once a month. I have no idea how other companies do this.


> there was a script that was supposed to actually delete the entries ... was there for legal and compliance issues.

Sounds like the laws worked in this case. They required data to be actually deleted, and it was due to those laws, and only due to those laws.


No you don't understand, the script exists for plausible deniability, it even runs sometimes! And if you find out we didn't delete your data, we might even go out of our way to run it for you. Except if the script doesn't run anymore because it's been broken. Or because 5 microservices were added since the last time we "actually had to run it", and so even running it makes no assurance it actually deletes everything about you.

But if an internal lawyer really puts their foot down, we might put an intern looking at it for a couple of days.

I'd bet a finger this is how it works in most companies, and I know I've seen worse versions.


Many businesses would still use soft-deletion even if distributed data wasn't an issue. The company I work for has soft-deletion enabled because they want to be able to help customers who accidentally delete something. I wish we would just tell them "better luck next time", but obviously management will never say that.

What annoys me more is how many companies give next to no insight into or control over data retention. It should be unambiguous how soon or often our data gets hard-deleted, if ever.


Heh, I once worked for a company that had an "is_deleted2" field .. it indicated record was "hard" deleted and not accessible anymore via usual means!!


It's 2024 if you can't delete data without corruption or downtime you're an absolute buffoon of an engineer

If anything gdpr made painfully obvious how sloppy some devs/companies are


Let’s be clear that what you describe is absolutely not gdpr compliant, so it would be illegal if you do business in Europe


Did you read the whole comment? They say there was a batch script to comply with legal requirements.


They said they thought there was a script, but it wasn't run very often.


Didn’t seem sufficient to me at all, but I’m happy to be proven wrong.


I work for a company managing a team that has built this for GDPR compliance.

Customer submits a deletion request. We have a fan out process that takes the deletion request and submits it to a bunch of different data locations. All of these must respond within 2 days (though the required time is 72h). Each of those data locations will queue up a job to remove access (soft delete) the data, and schedule a hard delete for 28 days in the future. If the customer says they don't actually want the data to be deleted, we cancel the data hard deletion and revert the soft delete. If nothing happens the hard deletion goes through.


Thanks, that’s insightful. In this case, it seems sensible to me at least.


> but that was not run very often

GDPR has strict rules about how long data can persist after the deletion request is made.


Who knows what "not very often" means. It could mean once a day or once a year. The point is that this could be made to be compliant with little extra effort, so pointing out "um actually it's not compliant" is not saying much.


Do you have a magnet for it?


there is a git repo that claims to do it. They might have it for you.


I wish someone would share their programming workflow when using LLMs... I feel like I'm falling behind in this area.


The important task for you, now that llms write code, is to know the theory very well and have list of things to try out. The good thing about coding is we have very fast and tight feedback loop. You should be in a position to cross-question llm responses and that is possible only when you know your stuff.

https://x.com/jdnoc/status/1791145173524545874


They need to do exact same thing with .xyz TLD. It's gotten so bad that I had to block .xyz on our router.


What are you doing to get spammed/phished that often? I am not sure I've ever seen an illegitimate use of .xyz.


I hope it can be disabled.


It can, on every OS except ChromeOS, running Chrome is still optional.


Surely an enterprising hacker somewhere has figured out how to replace Chrome on Chromebooks by now?



Yes, here's where you disable it: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/



That has nothing to do with what Google is doing here.

That is an end user summarisation feature not a proprietary web API.


I don't know if I'm interpreting this right but it sounds to me like they're working on it too. [0]

[0]: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/share-your-feedba...


Mozilla's all-in on AI too, so it's only a matter of time until Firefox gets this: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/ai...


What you did there, I see it.


>Why are the tying laws not enforced in the US, or Canada

Regulatory capture and legalized corruption aka "lobbying".


>In May, we got a glimpse into the inner workings of Google Search, from a leak of twenty-five hundred pages of the company’s internal documentation. The files seem to have been uploaded to GitHub by an unknown party, in March

Does anyone have a link to this repo?


I can't the repo I think they may have since made it private, however they were released with an Apache 2.0 license so anybody can access/upload them.

They seem to be available here now: https://hexdocs.pm/google_api_content_warehouse/0.4.0/api-re...


I've been using it for years. Being able to quickly add arrows and highlights is fantastic.

My only wish is for it to be able to open existing files. I wish I could just open an image, make some edits, and save it. Unfortunately, you can only make edits to screenshots.


I haven't heard anything about Gary Wang and Caroline Ellison's criminal cases in a while. Anyone know the status of cases of these two? What kind of sentences are they expected to receive?


They cooperated and are charged with lesser crimes. I suspect they'll get less than 4 years each and serve maybe 2 (First Step Act).

SBF put a ceiling on the sentencing because he was very guilty, fully in charge, and showed no remorse.


I think four years is the right amount of time, and serve the whole four. I don't see them as blatantly criminal as SBF, and while agreeing to plead guilty and testifying against SBF is good, it doesn't quite mitigate their role for two years. It makes one wonder, though.. If SBF had just a little bit of humility and plead guilty.. I could see him as getting less than 8.


If the trial is federal (and I believe it is) there’s no deal that gets you out of federal prison faster than 90% of time served I believe, and that’s for good behavior. Feds don’t have a parole system otherwise

Edit: it’s 54 days per year, not 90%

> The Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) so that federal inmates can earn up to 54 days of good time credit for every year of their imposed sentence rather than for every year of their sentenced served. For example, this change means that an offender sentenced to 10 years in prison and who earns the maximum good time credits each year will earn 540 days of credit.


First Step Act changed this and it could technically be 50% of time served since these crimes are nonviolent.

Here’s a 45 minute video if you really want to know more

https://youtu.be/Uv2FqM0Eaug

I know the "85%" meme that HN parrots incessantly but that’s not the fully story (not sure why anyone would expect programmers to be experts on federal incarceration nuances… I only am after a friend wound up in federal prison)


I have two sisters and they're identical twins so I've read a lot about twins and they've told me numerous factoids and research into twins that they've come across.

What's fascinating is how various cultures treated twins. For example, the West African tribe Yoruba loved twins and worshiped them as Gods [1] while Australian Aboriginals had one them killed because they thought it carried an evil spirit [2].

[1] https://cwp.missouri.edu/2014/twins-in-west-african-culture-...

[2] https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/12/infanticide-in-trad...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You