this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
38 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43783 readers
849 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That feels potentially incomplete, because there's still the question of how to deal with an instance that refuses to honor federated removal requests, or which claims to but lies and secretly keeps a backup. If for example the legal/regulatory system was to decide that the original instance was responsible for ensuring user data is deleted even from federated servers, then the potential existence of such non-deleting servers would be a huge problem for the network as a whole.
As soon as the content moves to another server, it's their liability to comply.
If you scrape a website, them removing a user's PII in response to a GDPR request is not contingent on you also deleting what you scraped.
Federation of removal requests would simply ease the flow of compliance for both hosts and users.
If certain hosts decide to ignore the requests and the GDPR, that's up to them.