the article doesn't argue this. It argues that sometimes attorney client privilege can be abused to shield criminal acts and that lawyers and state bar associations have a role to play in preventing those abuses and holding violators accountable, which hasn't happened in this case.
> Reducing your legal risk by deleting old data that is no longer needed and no longer on legal hold is unethical.
It doesn't say this either. It talks about the deliberate destruction of evidence of actual crimes and the intentional suppression of the truth so that people can continue to be hurt.
> Violating laws that say you can't collect data on children is okay to do.
I have no idea where you even got that impression.
I have a legal background and am used to HN saying quite...interesting...things, and I've been here for 16 years, so I think I can translate the last one.
The idea is the Meta researcher who said every time they put on a headset, they ended up seeing sexual acts from adults directed at children, was the problem because they were collecting data on children.
the article doesn't argue this. It argues that sometimes attorney client privilege can be abused to shield criminal acts and that lawyers and state bar associations have a role to play in preventing those abuses and holding violators accountable, which hasn't happened in this case.
> Reducing your legal risk by deleting old data that is no longer needed and no longer on legal hold is unethical.
It doesn't say this either. It talks about the deliberate destruction of evidence of actual crimes and the intentional suppression of the truth so that people can continue to be hurt.
> Violating laws that say you can't collect data on children is okay to do.
I have no idea where you even got that impression.