During buying cheap colchicine side effects canada a severe asthma attack, the airways may close so much cialis online sale that vital organs in the body may not receive sufficient cheap accutane oxygen. Current research suggests that a combination of genetic and discount robaxin environmental factors may increase the chances a person will meet buy generic diovan the criteria for ASD. Some people claim that supplements, such canadian quinine as vitamin C, echinacea, and zinc, help them recover from generic cialis flu quicker. The absence of warnings or other information for synthroid sale a given drug does not indicate that the drug or find glyburide without prescription drug combination is safe, effective, or appropriate for all patients generic vibramycin prescription professional or all specific uses. The drug information contained herein is zyprexa prescription subject to change and is not intended to cover all buy generic colchicine possible uses, directions, precautions, warnings, drug interactions, allergic reactions, or purchase amoxicillin online adverse effects. However, this article should not be used as serevent without prescription a substitute for the knowledge and expertise of a licensed gel online cheap healthcare professional. For example, if irritation from a skin care product.

A new law in Georgia requires that registered sexual offenders give their usernames and passwords to the state so that authorities can read their email. The objective is to protect children. Is this reasonable?

Perhaps anyone convicted of a sexual crime can be considered to have sacrificed his right to privacy. But the category is actually fairly squishy. Recall the way UK censors labeled a ’70s LP album cover as “child pornography,” and the fact that until yesterday a woman could be arrested in Massachusetts for indecent exposure or lewd conduct — with a requirement that she register as a sexual offender — if she breast-fed her baby in public.

And if sexual offenders are a real risk of using email to harm children, surely corrupt stockbrokers are a risk of using email to scam customers, etc., etc. Why not make a general rule that if anyone is convicted of a crime, the state gets to monitor all their communications?

Is that the direction we want to go in the name of protecting ourselves?

This entry was posted on Friday, January 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 am and is filed under Privacy, Security, Surveillance. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.