🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9009091723.AA23905@mindcrf.mindcraft.com> karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) writes:
>As for the `attached storage' argument, this is one more example to
>show that rules that may be appropriate in the context of print
>journalism can become much more oppressive when they're applied to
>electronic journalism.  In order to protect the property rights of Bell
>South, the Secret Service compromised the privacy of Jolnet's
>subscribers (email confiscated with the system), the property rights of
>the system operator, who was cooperative with the authorities to the
>extent of actually pointing out the suspect document to AT&T, and the
>right of Phrack's publishers (Jolnet subscribers) to produce their
>journal.

This brings up an interesting point that I was pondering the other night.
If I remember correctly there is a 90 day statuate on the protection
of email from being read.  All the SS has to do to avoid that is to
pick up all the equipment, lock it in a closet, wait 91 days and 
read at their leasure.  This way there is no violation of privacy when
they read the subscribers mail.


doug
__
Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug     doug@letni.lonestar.org

                                                              "Be seeing you..."