http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Reauthorizations
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html
oh and more on privacy in the US;
http://www.eff.org/cases/warshak-v-usa
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h112203.html
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Michael Dinowitz
<[EMA
::mumble:: been busy finding some thing for you about European privacy
laws. A lot of people seem to think this is fairly self-evident and
has been for a while, so it's hard to find something that doesn't
involve downloading a country-by-country guide for $75 or so, and I
draw the line at combing E
When was it enacted? I can't seem to find that information.
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and you really think Patriot II has made things *better*?
>
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Michael Dinowitz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Um, until I actually rea
and you really think Patriot II has made things *better*?
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Michael Dinowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, until I actually read the paper I'm not going to depend on an abstract
> alone. Are they comparing current laws vs. proposed ones? Are they talking
> about
Um, until I actually read the paper I'm not going to depend on an abstract
alone. Are they comparing current laws vs. proposed ones? Are they talking
about ecommerce (as they specifically referenced a bill dealing with
commercial practices)? What about the sentence about moving the US MORE
towards
um, no. It is not. Sorry.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8G-4BRB7KS-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=450fc63c2125b9cf39128566a8e65272
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Michael Dinowitz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
None of the above is not allowed on this one. Someone will take control and
do you want it to be Saudi Arabia? As for the NSA, they'll be doing it no
matter who runs it.
Bottom line is, no matter what we think about the US and its policy on
privacy, it's still a quantum leap above most of the rest
working. The US, Canada, and
> Britian would have the only working connections being a part of the
> coalition of the willing. What's wrong with that?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 200
turday, September 13, 2008 5:43 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Well it is still politics, but international - internet
politics for a change.
Of course, it should be in the hands of the UN. They are always prepared to
defend our rights, especially the one of free speech.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12
Of course, it should be in the hands of the UN. They are always prepared to
defend our rights, especially the one of free speech.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd rather it not be in the hands of *any* country that thinks that
> warrantless searches are ok,
I'd rather it not be in the hands of *any* country that thinks that
warrantless searches are ok, thank you :)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you would you rather have Russia and China determine the fate of
> Internet privacy?
So you would you rather have Russia and China determine the fate of
Internet privacy?
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Dana wrote:
> the US, champion of internet privacy :) I think you just won the day's
> "lack of self-awareness" trophy :)
~~~
the US, champion of internet privacy :) I think you just won the day's
"lack of self-awareness" trophy :)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In case anyone is still wondering why the U.S. should retain control
> over standards on the Internet, this is why.
>
In case anyone is still wondering why the U.S. should retain control
over standards on the Internet, this is why.
Applebaum is right, of course, no professional black hat would get
caught by such measures. But plenty of ordinary people would get
jailed in places like China and Russia for daring to
14 matches
Mail list logo
