"L. Detweiler" writes:
For example, learning that they are the target of a federal investigation into child pornography would imply to a high degree of probability they are `illegal'.
Seems to me it only implies that the files are central to a particular investigation. Unless you take the Ed Meese line that if you're a suspect then ipso facto you're a criminal, the implication has no legal weight (says this non-lawyer).
While I'm not sure that what CERT did was apropos, that warning was so *delicately worded*. In contrast the EFF announcement SHOUTS IN YOUR EAR. the CERT announcement was extremely diplomatic. the EFF announcement was SCREECHING.
Think of it this way. If I'm tooling down the Interstate at 75 and my passenger says Though ultimately you will have to make this decision for yourself, because in your capacity as driver of this motor vehicle you are solely responsible for adherence to state and local traffic ordinances, you should be aware that an official affiliated with a law enforcement organization is at this moment using a speed measurement device from his vehicle parked ahead of us behind a bush, and that there may be legal ramifications to his detection of your current speed. I'd be like real pissed off while the ticket was being written. If, on the other hand, my companion said TROOPER! SLOW DOWN! we'd probably make it to Stuckey's before they ran out of pecan log roll. -- Mike McNally