"
>> although the data is not retained by the server.
>Well, that’s something I suppose. Although presumably it is retained for some period of time, otherwise how would the adverts and recommendations be possible?
" //
So, basically they flat-out lied about the data retention.
If the UK Information Commission doesn't apply the largest fine ever recorded it will show they're entirely toothless.
When will government stop protecting the financial interests of mega-corps and start doing something to favour the demos.
>Well, that’s something I suppose. Although presumably it is retained for some period of time, otherwise how would the adverts and recommendations be possible? " //
So, basically they flat-out lied about the data retention.
That isn't the case. The system could build a representation of the viewers preferences when the data is received, then discard the data. That means the data isn't retained (for any normal definition of "retained").
It does hinge on the definition of retention - but the definition here is to contrast not being retained at all. So even retaining it long enough to digest it (which IMO is still data retention) is to be considered retention because the claim is that there is actually no retention at all.
~"Data is not retained" here should mean something like the port that data is being sent on is closed, or the packets input on that port are dropped by a firewall.
Your terminology may make sense to you, but it isn't commonly used or understood that way.
The more common term for what you describe is "processed"
Additionally, there are legal issues around that definition. For example, redefining "retention" to really mean "processed" means that things like proxies may suddenly become liable for things like copyright violation.
A proxy or cache doesn't substantively process the data. Here they are processing it if they are constructing anonymised models from it as you suggest may be the case. If they're processing it then they need to retain it long enough to perform those operations.
In the case at hand if they're processing it then they've "retained" it long enough to do that which is contrary to the spirit of the statement that it was 'fine that data was being sent to them as they weren't using it'. They used different words but this is the point of contention.
Either they discarded the data without further processing, amalgamation, statistical analysis, model construction, archiving or anything else or they used the data.
If they used the data in any way then it's a constructive lie even if there is some weaselling way in which their statement can be construed to be true.
>Well, that’s something I suppose. Although presumably it is retained for some period of time, otherwise how would the adverts and recommendations be possible? " //
So, basically they flat-out lied about the data retention.
If the UK Information Commission doesn't apply the largest fine ever recorded it will show they're entirely toothless.
When will government stop protecting the financial interests of mega-corps and start doing something to favour the demos.