Reese: (incited)
Are court records public documents, or not? Why wasn't that info sealed if there was a problem with releasing it?
There probably wasn't...agents go on the record.
===================================================
Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities and case citation? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with? ===================================================
I was brought up not to gossip. *batty eyelashes* I was also taught not to turn over rocks.
Agents don't get to use remailers and cower behind them.
Cypherpunks don't get the power and sovereign immunity of the reigning governmental infrastructure to cower behind.
Good point, I was just gigging you, Reese. Lighten up. :)
Show me a proof that no Agent has ever used a remailer, that no Agent shall ever use a remailer.
Show me proof that you don't have a brain, and that you shall never use it. That might keep you out of trouble.
Do you think you need probable cause for investigation?
I think that probable cause is needed for a valid investigation and where evidence is collected, for that evidence to properly be called valid in a court of law. In court, it is immensely helpful if the defense attorney has at least a half-a-clue and is on the ball, volumes could be said about judges who are interested in strict construction of all the applicable rules and regulations. See the ongoing tribulations and trials of Jim Bell and CJ Parker for some infuriating examples of defense attorneys and judges who do not meet these ideals in the most exemplary fashion.
I wouldn't know about that.
I think that in more than a sufficient number of cases, people will do what they want, regardless of the letter of the law. I think that some people are in better positions to get away with this than others.
I wouldn't know about that.
I think that those who make their living in law enforcement and/or jurisprudence are people, but I may be wrong - some or all of them may be sub-human. Such as that isn't mine to decide, nor is it mine to announce and/or act on - but I can watch and remember. ;)
Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with? ~Aimee *reptilian slithering sounds*
On Saturday, August 18, 2001, at 09:35 AM, georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
On 18 Aug 2001, at 9:59, Aimee Farr wrote:
I was also taught not to turn over rocks.
Under rocks is where some of the most intersting stuff is.
And this is a major difference between men and women. Girls are taught or are inclined not to experiment, not to try new things, not to "turn over rocks." Boys are taught or are inclined to try experiments, to go exploring, to poke at things, to turn over rocks just for the hell of it. I'm deliberately staying away from the "nature vs. nurture" issue, hence the "taught or are inclined to" phrasing. I think there's strong evidence of a biological/hormonal difference, but the effect may also be one of evolutionary pressures. Males are more expendible, for the continuance of a line/tribe, so males can go out and poke at things...this may even lead to new discoveries of use to the line/tribe. Females are the rate-limiter for breeding, so having them be super-cautious and sticking close to home in the cave or the yurt makes sense. I expect this carries over to speech patterns as well: Average male: "Yog, go 4 thuks downstream and check on the bison herd. Report back." (succinct, technical information) Average female: "And I'm like, _whatever_, and that bitch is like "Huh?" and so I go What do you _mean_ girlfriend!," and then she goes --Wilma, the baby's crying again. I'll be back." (sitting around the cave, sewing and patting out tortillas, making soothing gossip and chatter, with an ear cocked for sounds of babies in distress.) Regardless of where it comes from, girls and women are much less willing to explore, on average, than boys and men are. This is very clear with computers, as even feminist writers have acknowledged (the books on "mathphobia" (Tobin) give many examples. There are exceptions, but the causal model above fits pretty closely the outcome of numbers of males vs. females in engineering, programming, etc. (A few women on this list, a few women at the Hackers Conference, a few women pioneers in computers...the list goes on.) Many women are going into law, however, where their babbling goes over well."When in doubt, engage mouth." I know of one a female lawyer larvae who's not like this...she knows who she is. --Tim May
At 04:59 AM 8/18/2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
I wouldn't know about that.
I wouldn't know about that.
Why am I not surprised.
I think that those who make their living in law enforcement and/or jurisprudence are people, but I may be wrong - some or all of them may be sub-human. Such as that isn't mine to decide, nor is it mine to announce and/or act on - but I can watch and remember. ;)
Why then, the subterfuge regarding the identities? Why not be straightforward about it to begin with?
That is straightforward. Did you want me to name names? Why should I? Can't you figure those things out for yourself?
~Aimee *reptilian slithering sounds*
You said it.
participants (4)
-
Aimee Farr -
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
Reese -
Tim May