Comment by Psillisp 13 days ago You are going to need to clarify more. I have no idea what you are for. 4 comments Psillisp Reply rationalist 13 days ago Why does a person have to be "for" something? Psillisp 13 days ago [flagged] Volundr 13 days ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. rationalist 13 days ago "sleaze"?
rationalist 13 days ago Why does a person have to be "for" something? Psillisp 13 days ago [flagged] Volundr 13 days ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. rationalist 13 days ago "sleaze"?
Psillisp 13 days ago [flagged] Volundr 13 days ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. rationalist 13 days ago "sleaze"?
Volundr 13 days ago The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose.
Why does a person have to be "for" something?
[flagged]
The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose.
"sleaze"?