[jariel]

Ok, well that helps the case of FB even more, but there have been quite a number of reports indicating that CA did not in fact delete the data as requested. If you have a public reference that indicates they did, that'd be great. This entire issue seems to be about 'misinformation and narrative' not actual facts.

[TristanDaCunha]

Yeah, the Guardian was actually interested in the story because they were mislead by the statements of the CEO of CA and by Christopher Wylie into believing that CA was involved in a campaign for Brexit in 2016. They wanted to delegitimise the outcome of the referendum.

Funnily enough, the newspaper doesn't mention that Wylie didn't work at CA in 2016 - so he can't be considered a first hand witness or a whistleblower concerning the American presidential election or Brexit. He left in 2014 after obtaining the Facebook dataset to start his own political data consultancy, Eunoia Technologies. The company was based on the concept of micro-targeting(, which he falsely believed was a novel idea). He competed with CA for contracts unsuccessfully, and Eunoia was ultimately sued by CA for stealing clients. (This might explain why he was so willing to work with the Guardian to bring the company down.)

All of the information in the above paragraph can be found on Wikipedia, except for the parts in brackets.

You can read the report from QC Julian Malins or the ICO about the whole situation, they're found no evidence of CA retaining the data. But you can't prove a negative.

[jariel]

They really made Wylie into a brand what with his fresh hair colour and 'whistleblower' cred style.

I felt that the entire story was as much about narrative than anything.

It's sad because these stories are important, The Guardian is mostly a credible entity, they really ruin their credibility with such shenanigans.