> We only *suspect* that: we saw him holding a smoking gun but did not > actually see him fire it.
Yes, which is plenty sufficient to soothe my conscience about invasive measures. If there's a homicide, ought it go uninvestigated and the shooter undiscovered just because we're concerned we might be invading the privacy of a possibly-innocent person? I would suspect I was grossly misunderstanding you were it not for what you said below: > I'm not fine with invasive anything whilst they are *only* a > suspect. And once you have proven guilt or innocence it matters not a > jot who they are. "Until you prove guilt I won't approve of any serious investigation into who did it or how. And if somehow you prove guilt anyway then you don't need to ask these questions any more, so I still won't approve." Okay. Thanks. I'm really glad you're in the minority: if I were to wind up murdered on a city street, I'd really hope the police would care enough to find out who did it and how it was done and why -- even if those questions might offend people's sensibilities.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
