AF Wrote: > > 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. > I don't think that the law requires me to make all communications comprehensible or trackable or to get approval prior to creating the contents or keep copies for later use. Please explain where the law does not agree. Let's avoid the mess that comes along with calling some sort of active material a "communication" or the regulation that goes along with certain RF channels and stick with conventional text, voice, image sorts of communications. Break a communication into three phases : 1. Composition 2. Transfer 3. Receipt #1 is certainly legally unfettered - I can write, draw, speak whatever the hell I please. I can record it on paper, on a hard drive or yell it to the crowd at an A's game. #2 is more subject to attack than #1 but is legally unencumbered - I can address and transfer my data wherever I want to. I do not need to notify anyone, keep any records, nor am I obliged to make the transfer or contents observable. #3 it's when someone takes offense that the consequences of speech may be felt. This is where the fight is. It also happens to be, in the case of adequate precautions having been observed in 1&2, too damn late to object. I'm sure the law here in the US will try to adapt via a RIP-like approach. Technology won't stand still and wait for the law to catch up. Mike
