On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:00:19PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > I read the "for backup purposes" as being a euphemism, implying that the > second copy was being kept for nefarious purposes, including so that it > could be reviewed (including by third parties) even if the user had > deleted the "visible" copy.
Yes, precisely this. I thought it was blatantly obvious, but as usual the Internet has corrected my assumptions.
