Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
John Young wrote:
Aimee Farr spun:
I spin, you lyre.
You say 'tomato', he says 'tomato'
And Jim Choate says potato?
--
--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
+ ^ + :Surveillance
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
What '3rd party'? Single party states require the person doing the
recording to be a PARTICIPANT in the discussion, this implies that at
least one other party is aware of their presence. Hardly '3rd' person.
Two party states require ALL
John Young wrote:
Aimee Farr spun:
I spin, you lyre.
Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark contrast to
'crypto-anarchy.'
This caught me a nudder fish. I'm going into my reinforced steel shark cage,
'cause this tells Mr. Big Fish could be behind him (Tim is like
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
First, the law can be used to the advantage of aforesaid 'technological
means,' often giving hints. For example, somewhat in the context of this
discussion, it seems possible to have electronic communication that does not
imply third-party permission
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
John Young wrote:
Aimee Farr spun:
I spin, you lyre.
You say 'tomato', he says 'tomato'
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
At 5:23 PM -0700 4/20/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Here's an interesting article.
In this one, a US District Judge says explicitly that
the first amendment does apply to the internet and that
people DO have a right to anonymous speech online.
The case involved a company claiming that users of a
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Tim May wrote:
These cases, and the reporting of them, are filled with much
confusion and mischief.
No, as usual, it is you Tim who are confused.
The First Amendment says that government (originally the Federal, now
states) may not censor material, may not practice
Tim:
It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed
in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be
subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who
may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is somehow exempt from producing
subpoenaed
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Bill Stewart wrote:
Tim:
It does _not_ say that writings may not be compelled to be disclosed
in a court case, it does _not_ say that witnesses may not be
subpoenaed, and it most certainly does _not_ say that John Doe, who
may be a chatroom sysop or ISP, is
Here's an interesting article.
In this one, a US District Judge says explicitly that
the first amendment does apply to the internet and that
people DO have a right to anonymous speech online.
The case involved a company claiming that users of a
chatroom had "conspired" to drive its stock
10 matches
Mail list logo
