On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Tim May wrote:
> Congress cannot "remove privacy protections from journalists and
> publishers" for obvious First Amendment reasons.
>
> (There is no "privacy right," qua privacy. There are various rights
> involving protection from random searches and seizures, freedom to
At 10:41 3/6/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>Congress cannot "remove privacy protections from journalists and
>publishers" for obvious First Amendment reasons.
Ah, but they're thinking of nixing "some" privacy protections, not all.
We're talking about searches and seizures, here, and the feds have
At 8:47 AM -0800 3/6/00, David Honig wrote:
>When everyone is a publisher, publishers lose rights?
>
>
>At 07:48 AM 3/6/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>>The forthcoming report:
>> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/unlawfulconduct.html
>
> Congress should consider
>
Right-o! You guessed it at the first try. Read on.
-Declan
At 08:47 3/6/2000 -0800, David Honig wrote:
>When everyone is a publisher, publishers lose rights?
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/unlawfulconduct.html
3. Privacy Protection Act
The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 ("PPA"), 42 U.S.C.
When everyone is a publisher, publishers lose rights?
At 07:48 AM 3/6/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>The forthcoming report:
> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/unlawfulconduct.html
Congress should consider
approving a law to remove some
The forthcoming report:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/unlawfulconduct.html
*
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34720,00.html
U.S. Wants to Trace Net Users
by Declan McCullagh ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
3:00
