[stego-tech]

This. The fact LLMs can also amplify existing closed-set research means even smaller shops can now search through a flood of documents to find smoking guns or critical evidence, much faster.

I’ve been saying it since the mid-10s, but it’s worth repeating: data isn’t gold, it’s more like oxygen in a room in that the higher the concentration, the more likely it is to poison the inhabitants or explode with an errant spark (lawsuit).

Collect only what’s needed to perform the function, and store it only as long as necessary for compliance. Anything else is going to spool counsel.

[mock-possum]

What are you trying to get away with I wonder?

[stego-tech]

Chillax Palantir, your pro-surveillance throwaway incidentally makes such large data harvesting companies a larger target.

Limiting data retention doesn't mean hiding bad things, it means limiting exposure in general. The more of a thing - anything - that you have, the bigger a target you are to bad actors. By extension, companies holding vast sums of data beyond what's needed to process a given transaction or remain compliant with the law end up placing themselves at risk of being targeted and said data used as leverage against them.

You don't limit data to hide bad shit you're doing, you limit it to avoid others using it to do bad shit against you or your customers. If someone or something is engaged in bad shit, there will always be evidence somewhere regardless of data retention policies.

[array_key_first]

Probably nothing, he's just not naive. You would have to have the intelligence of a small child to legitimately believe that authorities are only ever acting in benevolence, never with ulterior motives, and that they can never make mistakes. It's a matter of risk analysis here; we want to minimize the risk of shit going wrong.