No hiding place for fly tippers

[Roger Hayter]

In message <Cx2Ia6ngUtpHFw8S@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather 
<clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <47A6176A.3113.250E465@davidh.spidacom.co.uk>, David Hansen 
><davidh@spidacom.co.uk> writes
>>> Whether you like it or not, such organisations
>>> do strive to stay within the law, and have significant compliance
>>> operations in place.
>>
>>These companies wanted and got an only obeying orders approach. They
>>are not to decide on anything, only to tick the appropriate boxes and
>>slope their shoulders if questioned.
>>
>>It would be good if they had continued to accept their responsibilities
>>to theur customers, but they didn't want to.
>
>See the posting I made in another thread about a minute ago. In 
>summary, I don't accept that there was another option. Yes, I wanted an 
>"only obeying orders approach". It's rather better than a "let's 
>pretend to be Sherlock Holmes" approach or a "let's trust every single 
>policeman and official" approach.
>

What's wrong with the "let's refuse requests for our customers' private 
information unless backed up by a court order" approach?
-- 
Roger Hayter