hi clo,
this is all preamble. the supreme court is where it ends.
the question this judge failed to acknowledge is whether such a thing as the bill of rights has any meaning in the modern us.
everyone already knows that there are dangerous things in the world. the question is whether folks should be permitted to have a space for privacy in electronic communication. i shall look forward to the day that judge finds his love letters are revealed, or discovers his communications with his legal secretaries are in the hands of the attorneys bringing cases in his court, or when his religious confessions are published by someone who has intercepted them. then, perhaps, he will see that privacy has a value.
instead, he seems to think the only way to address aq is by denying privacy to everyone on the planet. he thinks only of the side of the discussion which is convenient to his predisposition.
somehow i think that is arguable. ;-)
it will seem more so when the chinese equivalent of the nsa is spying on every us citizen.
if this is what the internet is becoming, why would we want it?
we have become ant-people to the governments of the world.
| 