The problem is also that, "watching you" is a bad analogy. It implies, like you mention, that the entity has to prioritize who/what they "watch". This is a bad

The problem is also that, "watching you" is a bad analogy. It implies, like you mention, that the entity has to prioritize who/what they "watch". This is a bad analogy because unlike humans, who can't watch historic events and therefore can only speculate at them (not held up in court), these entities can look back with a high degree of accuracy. The problem, is no longer that someone is "watching you". Its worse. The problem is that someone, one day, could watch your entire life. Then proceed to pull apart events and use them, mostly out of context, against you. I wouldn't call myself paranoid. I'm not doing anything about it. Honestly, if the data was only retained a month, unless needed in a current investigation, I would agree with you, this wouldn't be worth mentioning. However, retention of data is cheap and the data of your life will probably outlast you. As such, the parent posters in this convo have a point, it is something worth giving attention to. PS. And to be quite honest, I don't even care that they can look back at my life and scrutinize me for an email or two. The real fear is that they can pull specific quotes or life choices out of context. You as an individual can't even discredit them because you don't have access to the original files (unless the entity does you a favor and shares them with you). So you can show how innocent the same email quote or life choice is while in context. You are instead left with your memory, and hopefully powerful rhetoric to convince a jury you are innocent.