![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/5765e0a4-8f36-4804-afff-118c5f708a61.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/94b2b808-7c9c-4de0-a35b-966d14ae40fd.png)
Let’s say notifications are like walkie-talkies. You push a button, it sends an alert or your voice to the paired device. Neither one is storing the information, they are just relaying to each other. Now, in this case the government has issued a court order stating that a third party be given a walkie-talkie with the ability to understand the information transmitted by the first. There is still no storage being done, but a second party now receives all the information being broadcast.
It’s not about not having the information. You don’t actually need to store it anywhere to facilitate communication, at least beyond it being in memory which most would agree doesn’t constitute storage in this situation.
Now, could that third party store the information? Absolutely.
Looking directly at the sun for short periods of time doesn’t immediately cause problems, but years down the line you will start to notice a section of your vision start to become like a void, no color, no light, just a lack of sight.
Just because you don’t notice an immediate effect doesn’t mean you’re not causing harm. The human body is a wonder of redundancy, and having ways of compensating in the short term. But eventually those compensations start to fade.