Black Unicorn wrote:
I'm not sure where you have been over the last 48 hours but clearly you've not been paying attention.
Actually, I have.
Courts _clearly_ have the ability to demand the production of all
copies and
originals of a document. They have merely to order it.
Really? So some senile asshole orders it. I give him ten copies. So then what? Oh, there's more? How many? All? How many is "all"? Okay, here's ten more. Prove that's not "all".
They _clearly_ have the ability to smack a gag order on also. The rest of us settled that
question some time ago.
Hmm --- no, you decided it was settled to your satisfaction.
As others have stated, if you don't keep logs, or throw away
your reciepts, there's not jack they can do about it.
Uh, no. And if you had been reading the many, many posts on this
all point
you'd see that about every one of the 10-15 cases cited here say exactly the opposite of what you claim above.
Cases dealing with corporations who naturally keep lots of records, files, etc. This was about a journalist, one entity, who probably keeps about the same number of grocery store receipts as the rest of us, like zero.
(I didn't see a legal background on your resume either but perhaps you have any cites that I don't know about?)
Hmm, sorry. IANAL. But I have spent one heck of a lot of time in Gov. docs reading statute and case law. Not that it matters -- this is really more about justice and common sense. Common sense dictates that I'd produce -- if ordered to hand over the "original and all copies" of my own work -- the "original" and maybe 2 copies, then bogey to another jurisdiction and anonymously spam the whole world with whatever they were trying to suppress.
--- the interesting question is whether or not they can somehow expect you to turn over *all* copies of a document you've published on freenet or mojo. And whether they are encrypted or not is irrelevant.
Now I'm beginning to regret responding to this post at all because
it's
painfully clear that you just haven't got a good grip on this issue.
I think I've got an extremely good grip on the issue -- it's you who are doing your utmost to muddy the waters and take everyone's mind off the real issue. Who gives a fast flying fuck what this asshole judge, or any other scumbag court has to say when they are trying to suppress the truth?
Had you been reading you'd have known the answer to this, and why encryption or non-encryption was important about 40 posts ago.
All I've seen from you is a whole lot of BS plainly intended to obscure the real issue. Cite whatever you want --- it's totally irrelevant. People need to learn about their options. Cite us the case of the villagers in Latin America who hacked a judge to death with machetes -- that's much more relevant.
Although really, the most serious question everyone should be asking is why the court wants "all" copies.
Asked and answered.
Asked, but not answered. The only possible answer is that it's a crooked judge who wants to suppress the truth. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html