Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect control' bit is the part that got lost in the article. I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way to make *sequestration* of a piece of info impossible, by placing copies permanently outside 'his direct or indirect control'. --------------- I hope you read Mike's 'Oh pointy one' note carefully; it points out one of the great problems most of us IANAL have with IAAL types - the confusion of laws and court action with right and justice, and actions which are simply unlawful at a given time and place with wrong and injustice. Laws and courts are or should be an attempt to map the behaviour of governments to right and justice, but lawyers so often seemed to have been conditioned into thinking they are one and the same, rather than a (very) rough approximation. [Case to point: Canter and Siegel claiming that there was nothing wrong with them sending their Green Card spam, since there was no law against it.] It's possible - indeed essential - for people to argue over right and wrong, justice and injustice without regard for what a given legal and court system says; even a court and legal system which can send Men With Guns after them. Laws do not define Right and Wrong. Courts and Legal Systems do not define Justice. They are better than nothing at all, but we should never imbue them with divine wisdom. That way lies Tyranny. Peter Trei