|> Maybe so, but we don't have to like it. And I don't. But |> it's not so much their access, per se, that I object to. F|Why the hell do you care ? Someone has a home page for something on the Web. |Someone at the White House looks at it. So what ? You object to the fact |that somebody in the government has a Web browser and *gasp* uses it to read |stuff on the WWW ??? What did I just write? It's not so much their access... |> It's their potential intentions, F|You take moral offense to what you think someone else _might_ be thinking ? Not normally, no. But I've found a number of reasons to take offense at more overt government actions, and I see no reason not to take offense at obscure government actions. Especially when it involves spooks (NSA, DOD, military branch agencies, CIA, FBI, DEA, alphabet soup agency of choice). |Sounds like you believe in thoughtcrime. Banned any good books lately ? I _DO_ believe in thoughtcrime. I think it's a goddamned crime when some dickhead with more power than sense attempts to limit the actions of private citizens, in complete disregard for the idea of "presumed innocent until proven guilty." If someone so much as THINKS this, I have a problem with them. Now, go fuck yourself. F|> all things considered, and |> the fact that they aren't at all open about such monitoring. F|This is absurd. You expect the White House to issue a press release every tim |a staffer clicks on a URL ? No. I want to know what they're monitoring on a general basis and why. It's my tax money, too. But they aren't open about the monitoring. Half the time they deny doing it at all, and the rest of the time they come up with a few dozen specious excuses. furi@the-matrix.com pgp-public-key@demon.co.uk C1225CE1 RADical 1 Systems - Multi-Platform Custom Programming, Service, & Support