For order discount spiriva online effects example, a doctor may use an ultrasound to see how t-ject 60 for order much an ulcer shrank following or during treatment. Consuming high zithromax calorie, nutrient-dense foods and increasing protein intake may help a purchase cheap kenalog low cost consultation person with pancreatic cancer gain weight. If your doctor recommends buy cheap estrace Cipro for a UTI, your dosage depends on whether it's ampicillin online simple or complicated. It is also important to contact an buy celexa emergency number to get medical help.If this stops the bleeding, accutane prescription the next step is to cover the wound with a buy clonidine online sterile gauze dressing and bandage to continue to exert pressure order cheapest triamterene dose on the wound.When the bleeding comes from an artery in accutane prescription the arm or leg, it may help to elevate the buy cialis pills body part above the level of the heart.If all efforts robaxin no prescription to stop the bleeding fail, the last resort involves applying best price for cialis a tourniquet above the bleeding wound. GERD happens when the junction.

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.