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.
Show me the law on what *form* private communications must have, may
have, may not have, etc.
Show me the law on what *content* is permitted in private communications.
Show me the law on *retention* of private communications.
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.
Not as to participants, form, content, or retention.
>
> > > Finally, the law has an impressive track record, in stark
>> contrast to 'crypto-anarchy.'
>> >
>> > ~Aimee
>
>I knew that would catch a fish.
Indeed, you are obviously trolling.
>
>
>~Aimee
>Counsel for The Establishment
Needless to say. No doubt active in the Waco area in narcing out
illegal religions like the BDs.
Sickening.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
