At Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:08:17 -0700, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>At 1:11 PM -0500 4/24/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
>>Mike said, quoting me, quoting Tim: (I'm on lunch - billable hour sink
>this place.)
>>
>>> Further, I don't think individuals owe any obligation to the law as
to
>>> the participants, form, content or retention of private communications.
>>
>>Recognizing that the law does not agree with you, that's a valid opinion.
>
>Show me the law on who can *participate* in private communications.
See Generally: Several penal codes re: probation prohibiting individuals
from conducting certain communications with felons, minors, foreign nationals
(in the case of espionage) and etc. See also, the oil embargo.
>Show me the law on what *form* private communications must have, may
>have, may not have, etc.
Feel free to review any number of banking regulations that stipulate the
nature and form of otherwise private dealings between two actors.
>Show me the law on what *content* is permitted in private communications.
See Generally: Criminal Law - Conspiracy.
>Show me the law on *retention* of private communications.
See financial record keeping requirements imposed even on private companies,
import export firms, taxation, etc. See also, currency reporting requirements
for other wise "private" transactions. See also, regulations for record
retention in the transaction of firearms. etc. etc.
>I can think of various laws about child porn, death threats,
>classified secrets, etc., which affect some of the above, but these
>are "clearly special cases" and it is a mistake to confuse laws about
>child porn, for example, with disputing Mike's general point that the
>law simply does not regulate private communications.
Well, suffice it to say that there are a lot of "clearly special cases."
>Not as to participants, form, content, or retention.
See above.
Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com
