[jesopo]

https://web.archive.org/web/20210514172245/https://sand.cat/...

> [00:59:01] <prawnsalad> also re. user data, youre forgetting that all data under snoonet is ltm data. rdv had sold all of that way beforehand. neither i, or most of you had any say in that

[prawnsalad]

Owning and actually having access to are two entirely different things. At no point has Andrew had access to, read or write, or log, in any way shape or form, any private Snoonet data. User data was specifically locked down to (if I remember off-hand) roughly 3 staff members who were all from the community staff. This has continued so far and has no plans for it to change.

[kuschku]

That would be trustworthy, if Andrew hadn't talked about not having and never desiring +O on freenode 4 years ago. [1]

If he's willing to go back on those terms and agreements, why not on this one as well?

________________________

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27247619

[jesopo]

I don't see a lot of difference between Andrew having his hands on the data and the fact that he could have had his hands on the data should he have thrown lawyers at you too, but I recognise the above log doesn't show he had access to the data and I've had a couple of snoonet staff say he didn't get access to the data even if services (and its database) was moved to LTMH-owned servers.

The log, however, does correctly present how LTMH treats the concept of user data (i.e. as an asset to be sold and owned) and I found that an extremely important view to give to freenode users who's data was about to change hands.

I also recognise you were not involved in the freenode hostile takeover and I'm actually fairly grateful you sought to make communication between Tom and Andrew