On 15 October 2014 20:41, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 10 October 2014 16:45, Rod Taylor <rod.tay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Redaction prevents accidental information loss only, forcing any loss >> that occurs to be explicit. It ensures that loss of information can be >> tied clearly back to an individual, like an ink packet that stains the >> fingers of a thief. > > That is not true. > > It can only be tied to a session. That's very far from an individual > in court terms, if you ask a lawyer. > > You need a helluva lot more to tie that to an individual.
So you're familiar then with this process? So you know that an auditor would trigger an investigation, resulting in deeper surveillance and gathering of evidence that ends with various remedial actions, such as court. How would that process start then, if not this way? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
