#erase all data | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jeoseungsaja · 2 years

Text

@gdmonster ♚ continued from x.

♔ ———–

He tries to be courteous in these instances, even if he’s normally not so polite. A sense of distrust always follows him; a product of his environment and parts of his upbringing, too. The welcome, in a way, leaves a bitter taste in his mouth due to the things he’s heard and the reason he got here. Is he really welcome, with his chaotic record and an attitude that, he’s sure, she’s already heard of? That type of information always runs fast --- the bad one, the negative one; the one that promises to tear you apart if you let it.

A hand goes to meet hers. He also decides to give a bow, not as pronounced but not as loose, either. Just one that shows sliver of gratitude as the smallest hint of a tight-lipped smile appears. It looks weird --- he doesn’t really smile. However, that odd grin disappears as fast as it makes its appearance.

He’s glad she doesn’t seem so unfastened, either. Hyuk has been transferred to other places before (here and there, like a bouncing ball; his boss often insists on these things as to ‘calm him down’ and it seems they haven’t learned a thing -- neither has he) and there’s been examples of loud and faux affability, you know, the type to welcome you with bold laughter and crinkled eyes as if wanting to disguise a condemned place as wonderland. He prefers this. The distance, the vague amiability that’s not freezing cold nor does it scald the tongue.

Oh Jihwa. He’s heard about her, too; did a small research before coming here. Divorced and with a brother also working in the force. Not that personal things matter -- what matters is that he read she’s very good at what she does; handling cases with a grace that earned her the title she has now. Answering to a competent Team Leader is good. He just hopes something crooked is not hiding amid all that good reputation.

He’s never been a Team Leader. Not officially, at least. Superiors have said he wouldn’t be a good one because of how gritty he is. You’ll never go up if you keep behaving like that, detective Lee. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He doesn’t care.

Eyes drift from Detective Oh to identify Kang Do-Soo. The...what did she say? One of the best men in the precinct? Uh-huh. We’ll see about that. He bows his head when taking note of him. It seems they have partners here, too. Not many things change, all things considered. Just the faces and the location.

“Understood.”

He finally says when she also mentions Detective Kwak and Chief Jeong. He’s read about them, too. Especially about the latter. Weird vibes he got about this guy in particular; the type of hunch that you cannot blatantly ignore. He’ll keep that to himself.

Harsh glance is given in return when Detective Oh stares him down. Frown pressed on features; he lets hands slide in the pockets of his trousers. He’s not intimidated. Just uncomfortable.

“Yes, I did. I...left the box outside the door.”

Nothing much, really. Just his personal printer and some files; paper. Nothing personal, no trinkets that could reveal anything about him. The contents of his desk tend to be just like him --- dry; dedicated to work only. His personal stuff he already left at one of the apartment rooms. It’s small, but it’ll do.

“Will I have a designated space? Or is it going to be shared with someone else? I don’t mind either way.”

A pause.

“Do all detectives get assigned a partner? If so, I rather work by myself, if possible.”

A request he’d like to put on the table, whether he’s granted such a thing or not.

“Anything else I should know, Team Leader Detective Oh?”

———– ♔

#gdmonster #♔ || interaction (oh jihwa).#♔ || alternate universe (beyond evil).#IWHEDIWUEHDKASHDWUIEDH #I honestly love transferring Hyuk to all places :') sO I WAS LIKE 'WHAT IF---'#AND I'M SO HECKIN' GLAD YOU'RE ON BOARD WITH THIS IDEA OHMYGOHWEIUDHWIEDH PLS TAKE EVERYTHING I OWN---#IT 110% WORKS I HOPE??? MINE WORKS TOO???#I hope I didn't...assume too much? AS IN...#I do imagine Hyuk doing a little research about the people he's going to meet #BUT IF THE DATA HE KNOWS ABOUT JIHWA IS //TOO// PERSONAL (like her being divorced - but he wouldn't know to who - and her brother) DO LET ME #KNOW AND I'LL ERASE THAT ASAP #AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY OKAY THAT JIHWA HAS HEARD ABOUT HYUK'S REPUTATION #I think it's?? The first thing people know about him lmao IWUEHDIUWDH #SO DON'T WORRY YOUR REPLY IS 110% PERFECT *CHEF'S KISS*#I ADORE YOU SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS <333333 #♔ || queue.

3 notes · View notes

sophiamcdougall · 4 months

Text

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you. I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age." -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.

#ukpol #uk politics #fuck the tories #lost media #data loss #cultural vandalism

15K notes · View notes