[120690] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RBN and it's spin-offs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Pitcock)
Wed Dec 30 23:15:06 2009
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net>
To: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6cd462c00912302012v773dba48x66a01c90b9c6590@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:13:45 -0600
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 20:12 -0800, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Without a warrant, there is an absolute right to privacy.
> > It continues to exist right up until either (a) one party chooses
> > to give up that privacy or (b) a third party arrives with a Court
> > Order. This is simply a covenant between two parties to preserve
> > that "private" state unless lawfully compelled by lawful process
> > otherwise. In other words, a covenant to adhere to the rule of
> > law and the courts in the event of any dispute between the parties
> > or any third party. It sure seems like a good thing to me -- and a
> > covenant I would hope anyone I do business adheres to.
> >
>
> That's funny.
>
> You're assuming that the MLAT [1] process works -- it doesn't.
It "worked" against Indymedia UK: http://www.indymedia.org/fbi/
William
