Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 4/20/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/04/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
How would that matter, though? It's the content being removed that's sensitive, not the fact that *something* is gone; and if the offending revisions are deleted/hidden/whatever, there's no way for someone to get at that content (at least not directly from us).
Sure there is, especially if the offending material has been sitting on the site for, oh, say, 4 months? This is where the "free flow of information" thing comes in - it's precisely because we're focused on getting information out there quickly that it's incredibly hard to mop it up suddenly if we need to. After 4 months, there are probably several hundred copies of the material available on the net, possibly even more on various users' hard disks, without mentioning Google's cache, archive.org ....
I would assume (not being a lawyer) that the possibility of our getting sued and such increases substantially if *we* continue to distribute the information, versus *someone else* distributing it; presumably the people who actually deal with this can comment more concretely.
All risks of being sued are a matter of probabilities with no certainty either way.
Ec