[ivan_gammel]

They do not have such moral responsibility. Their responsibilities are defined by laws and their T&Cs, which are known to the customers and customers explicitly opt in. If I say in my T&Cs that I delete data after certain period of account inactivity, then this is how it is going to work and user shall not expect anything else.

[saurik]

> Their responsibilities are defined by laws and their T&Cs, which are known to the customers and customers explicitly opt in.

You seem to just not believe in morals I guess? ;P

Like, yes: the law says you can do something... but I am claiming it isn't moral to do that. You can assert your terms of service let you, but I am claiming that it wasn't moral of you to put that in your terms of service in the first place. (And to the extent to which the law requires you do the opposite, that is us arguing over what the law should say, given that the entire point of this thread is about a changing law.)

And like, the user of course should expect you to do the things you claim you will do, but I also think it is fair for users to expect you to claim you will do moral things in the first place. If you are going to pull stunts like deleting data users entrusted to you, hopefully your service is sufficiently optional and unimportant that they can just not use your service without losing out on anything at all in life.

I see you work in medicine. Your field collects data on people all the time and then hoards it from them. You take X-rays and then just put them in some filing cabinet. To get a copy of MY X-ray I have to argue with people about it and then I usually get some low-quality shit copy. Meanwhile, you purge your records and delete MY data because I somehow have the gall to not need your specific service for some number of years until I get old and suddenly wish I could get my X-ray and you destroyed it :/.

You should frankly be REQUIRED to give people their data to take with and not take it yourself, a step you can't be trusted to not put it in your terms of service that you get to both hoard it and delete it on a whim. If you must insist on holding it yourself, you should be required to have a trust set up that you make regular deposits into to ensure that the data you are holding will survive at least as long as all of your patients.

That's what I will claim is "moral", and to the extent to which either laws or the terms of service of your organization fails to match then the lawmakers, lawyers, or entrepreneurs are being horrible people. If you believe in a religion that has a place similar to hell, maybe that's where all of the people who push for, allow, or take part in stuff like this will end up :/.

[ivan_gammel]

I do not believe in „morals“, yes. Whatever you think is right is just your opinion, unless it is important enough that society decides to codify it in law. Christians think that homosexuality is immoral - should I care about their opinion and lecture my gay friends about their wrong behavior? I rather suggest one billion of people to go to hell with this belief. Same here. If you want to discuss my personality from „moral“ perspective, you can join them. Especially given that you suggest to analyze from „moral“ perspective data retention, which is a pure UX and product topic.

[rsync]

"They do not have such moral responsibility. Their responsibilities are defined by laws and their T&Cs ..."

You have this backwards.

They do not have such legal responsibility - and you are correct that their legal responsibilities are defined by laws, T&C, etc.

However it is for them, not you, to define their moral responsibility.

I believe that if you run (something like a safe deposit box) you have a moral responsibility to (make human decisions about burning the contents).

[ivan_gammel]

As many people pointed out in the comments here, there are different expectations in this field - there is no common unwritten law about how it should work. If some people make wrong assumptions about it despite having access to the necessary information, it is really their fault. They are not the victims to be saved. If I run a deposit box, I do not offer it for free and I will empty it the moment payment stops. If I run a service with a free plan, I will keep the data as long as possible and will delete it only after economically justified period of inactivity. Contrary to the trials of paid subscriptions, free plans are not meant to be auto-deleted quickly, but since nobody pays for storage, business also cannot take obligation to keep the data of inactive accounts forever. That said, read the T&Cs and do not assume that your understanding of „morality“ is right.

[_hzrk]

Interconnectedness of the world today is economically justified, it does not have any morality in it. In the same vein, if we would have to listen to your anti-morality point of view, we should have kept the connections as before even if we contribute to the global warming, to the deaths of many vulnerable people contributed by the rising number of viruses that are spreaded at an accelerated rate, to the number of cyberattacks that have quadrupled. Similarly to economically accessible transit around the world and its complexity, we have the Internet which is clearly becoming more and more prone to breaches exploiting vulnerabilities (log4j literally proved that everything was open for exploitation). Today, while I'm watching a random Romanian TV channel, many psychopaths at a round table are leading you to believe that Covid's risk is self inflicted by people who don't work out & are overweight and that lockdowns are unjust, it is all people's fault, that there's nothing moral in lockdowns and wearing masks, which I strongly disagree with and it is also not supported by data.

[ivan_gammel]

If you are triggered by my „anti-morality views“, please re-read my comments again. There are too many attempts in this thread to stretch morality over basic policy and product issues and to shape it into a personal attack on me, I’m going to stop responding to all of them. If something can be both right and wrong depending on context, it is not guided by morality, it is guided by reason and by data. Some data retention policy can be right for some users and wrong for others. Lockdown can be appropriate solution under certain conditions and an attack to personal freedom in other cases. Neither data retention or hygiene rules are moral or immoral, because there’s no universal judgement for them. If something is highly contextual and disputed, it is better to keep morality off the discussion, otherwise consensus will never be found. It is better to use something people agree on, like human laws or laws of nature.