Hm. I disagree that executive level shenanigans translate to real world non-compliance with privacy law when there is an explicit request to delete/not store data.
> I disagree that executive level shenanigans translate to real world non-compliance with ________ law
Uber
Airbnb
Facebook
The entire financial industry
also, every huge corporation that paid a vast (but relative to their market cap, insignificant) settlement, long after incidents in question, without admitting guilt.
Corporations have essentially culled vast numbers of humans until forced to stop. What’s a little lucrative nosiness in that context?
The massive tide of legally gray (including very dark gray) media hoovered up by training data vacuums isn’t exactly an industry secret. Whether any known player is more serious about protecting data source interests over their own ambitions remains to be verifiably demonstrated.
Someone once said, “it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission”. Someone might add, “if ever, or only performatively for congressional testimony theatre purposes, and definitely only after requiring a more punitive legal/regulatory moat to lock in the benefits of your non-compliance”.
ANY sketchiness should be taken seriously. Not making accusations. But sooner or later, somebody is going to say, “it’s a lot easier to cry and complain than claw back information someone took from you, who has billions to spend on lawyers”.
Even if there weren't shenanigans, it's valid to be concerned. Incentives lead to outcomes. Companies do a cost-benefit analysis, if the legal/reputational costs are less than what they stand to gain, history shows that they'll do the thing and then lie about it. Sam might be uniquely resistant to this due to a personal ethical code, but it's impossible to know for sure given that I can't read his mind.
Uber
Airbnb
Facebook
The entire financial industry
also, every huge corporation that paid a vast (but relative to their market cap, insignificant) settlement, long after incidents in question, without admitting guilt.
Corporations have essentially culled vast numbers of humans until forced to stop. What’s a little lucrative nosiness in that context?
The massive tide of legally gray (including very dark gray) media hoovered up by training data vacuums isn’t exactly an industry secret. Whether any known player is more serious about protecting data source interests over their own ambitions remains to be verifiably demonstrated.
Someone once said, “it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission”. Someone might add, “if ever, or only performatively for congressional testimony theatre purposes, and definitely only after requiring a more punitive legal/regulatory moat to lock in the benefits of your non-compliance”.
ANY sketchiness should be taken seriously. Not making accusations. But sooner or later, somebody is going to say, “it’s a lot easier to cry and complain than claw back information someone took from you, who has billions to spend on lawyers”.