Spoliation cites

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
Trei, Peter:
> > I'll concur that BU is overreaching himself.

Eric Murray
> I read him as suggesting that some ambitious prosecutors might
> possibly try to extend spoliation to that point, not that
> they're doing so now.

I read him as saying the prospect of prosecutors extending
spoilation to include any act that we do not carefully record for
the benefit of those who wish to harm us, is so overwhelmingly
likely that we should right now carefully keep all records of our
sins so that we can hand them over to prosecutors in future --
that these methods, tactics, and technologies are foolish RIGHT
NOW, and RIGHT NOW using such technologies and tactics displays a
foolish ignorance of the law, and a pig headed refusal to take
sage legal advice.

Sandy compared the practice of purging old email (routine in most
big pockets companies) to someone who jumps from a ten story
building, and boasts he has not hit ground yet.  That is obviously
a reference to the situation NOW, not future repression.

Similarly one of them, I think Aimee, advised TC May that he
should faithfully keep records of his PAST ammo purchases, in
case that ammo becomes illegal in future, or someone commits some
bad act with that class of ammo.

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     VQzYv2UAqEb0o/wyCLdBrr7hAREwB113VOspuhU/
     4AZ7R8tXI7ibEvCwONehy2PzP8/J1FWtAaIeJZUPR