Like I understand if the account consumes some kind of resource like disk space or a limited number of reserved connection slots or something, but an account can’t be more than an entry in a database with associated purchases? Like what is the fucking point?!
Likely old accounts are an exploit vector for hackers. That would be the only reasonable excuse. However someone in the business unit will use this as their lever to make other bad decisions.
I had considered that, but that implies they’re holding onto way more sensitive information attached to those accounts than they should. Which is very possible, but even more shitty.
There’s security and possible support implications, and a general concept of reducing data use and storage, but I don’t see why they should take precedence for something like this.
Overall, yes, it can’t be significantly more than a few database records sitting around. The avatar image is probably more data than the rest of the account metadata.
At least in the EU it is required that data is only stored as long as it is needed and the user actively consents to it. An active consent can expire if the user isn’t engaged for a long time (how long depends on the type of data and service).
The user in the article is from the US though. I don’t know about the rules there.
What purpose could this possibly serve?
Like I understand if the account consumes some kind of resource like disk space or a limited number of reserved connection slots or something, but an account can’t be more than an entry in a database with associated purchases? Like what is the fucking point?!
Any opportunity to get a repeat purchase out of them.
Man, fuuuuuuuck that. That’s a great way to make me never buy a Sony product again if I was in that guy’s shoes.
Preferably on the new, shiny, and far more expensive PS5 where they can sell you even more overpriced games you don’t own.
Likely old accounts are an exploit vector for hackers. That would be the only reasonable excuse. However someone in the business unit will use this as their lever to make other bad decisions.
I had considered that, but that implies they’re holding onto way more sensitive information attached to those accounts than they should. Which is very possible, but even more shitty.
There’s security and possible support implications, and a general concept of reducing data use and storage, but I don’t see why they should take precedence for something like this.
Overall, yes, it can’t be significantly more than a few database records sitting around. The avatar image is probably more data than the rest of the account metadata.
At least in the EU it is required that data is only stored as long as it is needed and the user actively consents to it. An active consent can expire if the user isn’t engaged for a long time (how long depends on the type of data and service).
The user in the article is from the US though. I don’t know about the rules there.
Surely, this can’t apply for maintaining data on what a user “owns”, right?