At Tue, 1 May 2001 18:14:38 -0700, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The real argument is that commanding a person to keep records of whom >he communicates with (which is what a log of messages is all about) is >a slam dunk violation of the First Amendment. It is no more acceptable >than an order commanding Alice to record in a log the names of all those >persons she speaks with. Isn't she effectively so commanded insofaras there is a compulsory testomony requirement enforced by contempt of court? Sure she can commit purjury and claim to have forgotten when she hasn't but in the end she is required to "log" those names. No? The reason this is ineffective is that there is no way to prove she hasn't forgotten- other than the judge's best guess. Get digital logs to that level and you will have the same situation. Also, as I mentioned before there are also a series of regulations that require exactly these kind of recordings for otherwise "private" transactions between independent parties. (Banking regulations was one of the examples that others poo-pooed away at the time without explaining why they didn't apply). Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com
