On Fri 22 March 2002 02:33 pm, Andrew Mathews wrote: > edj wrote: > <snip> > > > The US Constitution limits only the government, not private parties. > > Thus, while the US government would need a warrant to recover my > > "papers and effects", my doctor could disseminate my records to > > whomever he wished, absent statutory prohibition. The Bush > > administration wishes to amend the statute. No constitutional > > prohibition, I'm afraid. > > > > -- > > How so? I can't simply sieze documents belonging to you, anymore than a > doctor, attorney, private company or anyone else can sieze anything > that's considered a private record. Explicit permission has to be given > for such, such as a release consent, or warrant, regardless of the > pursuer's belonging to a government or private sector. Items of public > record that are available freely are not considered to be *private* as > are personal records, papers, and other things.
No, you can't - but only because the legislature, or Bar Association says you can't. __Not__ because the Constitution says you can't As an employee of the > Supreme Court of New Mexico, though many records are available on a > public case lookup, there's specific prohibitions against me > disseminating those elsewhere, even though they're public documents and > I'm a private individual, let alone disseminating private information. Huh?? A "public case" - by which I assume you mean court records - can be gotten just by showing up the the clerk's office and requesting it. You can copy it, too - at exorbitant rates, usually. > Just because an individual or company doesn't fall under the category of > a government entity doesn't negate the right of an individual to be > protected from the dissemination of private information. Kevin Mitnick > spent a *long* time in prison for taking something he had no permission > or granted right to take (source code from Nokia and Sun) and was > considered a private record or effect and had no statutory prohibition, > e.g. no law stating that Nokia or Sun couldn't distribute their source > code without permission. Without the amendment's language there's no > defining line between theft and borrowing, legal and illegal, private > and public. The application of it provides equal protection, regardless > of the pursuer, government or private sector, though it's been distorted > sometimes to fit the situation as necessary. Kevin Mitnick broke the law - he didn't violate the Constitution. -- _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
