Warning: Lemmy doesn't care about your privacy, everything is tracked and stored forever, even if you delete it
raddle.me

Federated services have always had privacy issues but I expected Lemmy would have the fewest, but it’s visibly worse for privacy than even Reddit.

  • Deleted comments remain on the server but hidden to non-admins, the username remains visible
  • Deleted account usernames remain visible too
  • Anything remains visible on federated servers!
  • When you delete your account, media does not get deleted on any server
  • Kajo@pawb.socialEnglish
    6·
    1 year ago

    it can’t make it impossible. If facebook sold data to amazon, so now amazon has a copy, and then facebook’s user asks their data to be deleted, facebook can’t just march into amazon’s servers and delete the data themselves. The best they can do is send a formal notice to amazon requesting it be deleted, which sounds like what lemmy does. At this point it’s up to the federated server if they comply with the law…

    • philpo@feddit.deEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Actually that is exactly what the GDPR stipulates. In your example Facebook needs a data processing agreement that ensures that all rights of the data owners are secured and the GDPR is followed. Facebook is liable here, not Amazon - the user must explicitly NOT ask Amazon to delete as the user may not even know where the data went to/should not be bothered to write requests to a huge amount of different data processing locations.

      But, @hikaru755@feddit.de added another interesting point: The Instance may or may not be seen as a single data processing entity that does not voluntarily hands over data to other instances. That could indeed be a reasonable cause as e.g. data scrubbers are not within the sphere of influence of e.g. a service publicly displaying data. But as the whole network is build on interconnected nodes I wouldn’t count on it if that reasoning would fly in front of a court. It may. Or it may not.

      • Kajo@pawb.socialEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        In this case though, would it not be that then if Facebook did have a processing agreement with Amazon with which they communicate information, and this agreement stipulates that (in order to comply with GDPR) data they sell to amazon must be deleted upon request, and Amazon does NOT do so, this would make amazon liable for breach of contract instead of facebook being liable for breach of GDPR?

        If so, all fediverse instances would need is a copy-paste agreement when two instances federate that data from one must be deleted on the other upon request.

        • philpo@feddit.deEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          Partially right - Amazon would be liable, but not towards the data owner but Facebook. The data owner sues Facebook, Facebook then sues Amazon.

          A copy&paste agreement is the first (and from my point of few most important step). Personally I would also integrate a automatic mechanism that deletes data (e.g. the delete request gets automatically federated) and defederates instances that do not follow them globally. Sadly this is still not enough - data handling in the US and other jurisdictions with similar bad privacy laws is also a problem, see the recent Facebook case and Schremp2. But tbh I have no idea how to solve that.

          Lemmy can, by definition, not be GDPR obtain full GDPR compliance. We should make sure that best effort is ensured, especially with the right of deletion and the right to “know”(where data is stored), but also consider lobbying towards a reformed law for the federated use cases.

      • ZENITHSEEKEREnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        The originating instance definitely cannot be held responsible for failing to force a separate instance in another country to delete its cached copy of user data imo. I think what is more likely is that EU courts could force European Jimmy instances to only federate with GDPR-compliant instances. (so federation by whitelist rather than blacklist)

        • philpo@feddit.deEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          This is incorrect if the data transfer was done voluntarily/planned. This also applies to EU data outside the EU - Meta has been fined a 1.2 billion euro for that.

          And no, the definitive definition of the data transfer extent is a key point of the GDPR. Each and every data owner has the right to know where their data is stored exactly. So a “EU only” would not be enough - It is basically already mandatory as transfer to other countries is a major problem after Schrems 2.

          • ZENITHSEEKEREnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Ah yeah if the originating instance sends data to a secondary one then that is somewhat different.