Doctors buy asacol side effects work may classify sprains as mild, moderate, or severe depending on generic amikacin how much damage there is to the ligament. Make sure purchase cafergot price work the bandage covers the entire area from the ball of levitra prescription the foot to the ankle and heel.Either fasten the bandage low price cialis using the fastener provided or smooth the edge to the order celexa no prescription rest of the bandage in the case of a self-adhering buy methotrexate product.The bandage should prevent excessive movement but should not feel buy diflucan online cheap uncomfortable. A person should consult a doctor if they cannot buy atarax low cheap price put weight on their ankle and are experiencing severe pain. buy cheap flovent online Both products involve risks with use, but because isopropyl alcohol buy generic clozapine is more concentrated than rubbing alcohol, it is more hazardous. buy remeron without prescription A person may use rubbing alcohol in the home to purchase vibramycin online disinfect thermometers and frequently touched items, such as computer keyboards get buy alternatives store and phones. However, it is only safe if a person discount sales follows directions for use and heeds precautions, such as using it.

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.