wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 27 December 2016 01:23:31 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 26 December 2016 18:08:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 24 December 2016 09:04:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 24/12/16 10:47, harry wrote:

They need to be able to identify suspects from suspicious
traffic,
not
vice versa.
Have you got something to hide?

Who hasn't, from someone?

Cf Hillary Clinton....

the point is once the data is held somewhere, the potential exists
for
someone else to get hold of it...

If you've ever watched the mechanics of data trawling you find that
the 'reasoning' used is routinely idiotic, that the differentiation
between
fact & fiction is largely nonexistent, and the conlcusions drawn are
thus
complete nonsense a substantial amount of the time. Thus any data is
liable to result in inappropriate hostile responses.

How odd that none of us get any inappropriate hostile responses.

Oh, I didn't know that all bs from authorities had just ceased.
Great news. That or you've never heard of a court case in
which the defendant was found innocent. Or you're just ****ed.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

unlike you I don't need to.

Everyone can see for themselves that that is just another of your bare faced
lies.