Spoliation cites

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
James A. Donald:
> > Black Unicorn's recent post, where he denounces almost the
> > entire cypherpunk program as illegal by current legal
> > standards and a manifestation of foolish ignorance of the law
> > and obstinate refusal to take his wise advice,

Aimee Farr:
> No, he didn't.

Every time you say "no he did not say that:", he promptly says it
again in an even more extreme form, and you promptly announce 
you
agree with him.

That business about the "judge not being amused" is just the same
old argument "If you use crypto that shows you have something to
hide -- therefore you dare not use crypto".

Lawyers have no special qualifications and authority to make such
an argument,  and when they make it should be met with the same
ridicule as any other ignorant doofus who makes it.

Most big companies, companies with pockets so deep that they
attract lawsuits like flies, have decided it is better that the
judge suspects they have something to hide, than that the judge
knows full well that they have something they damn well should
have hidden, and those deep pocketed companies routinely, on a
regularly scheduled basis, in accordance with widely circulated
company policy, do all the things that Black Unicorn has been
telling us we must not do.

No doubt it is true that one can be sued for shredding records
that an enemy lawyer would have preferred one to keep, and such a
lawsuit might well succeed, but a jew can be sued for discarding
a ham sandwich, and such a lawsuit might well succeed also.

Companies with deep pockets, continually besieged by hostile
lawyers subpoenaing all sorts of information, do not seem as
impressed by the fearful terror of failure to amuse judges as
Black Unicorn tells us we should be. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     qmqbBFh1cJXpXWWSgMDC1f/66EGe34m2h/FZ8PkK
     4WyQu6INj4rCPdEIuSJx4RNcQIVL6ovZsuoo63Dee