During prednisolone online stores an asthma attack, people experience severe difficulty breathing and often erythromycin online stores describe the sensation as if someone is sitting on their buy cialis online australia chest. If tests confirm an iron deficiency, healthcare professionals will flagyl online stores likely recommend iron supplements. This drug may not be the buying cheap synthroid side effects canada right treatment option for you if you have certain medical buy free ampicillin conditions or other factors that affect your health. If you buy generic cipro have trouble swallowing tablets, see this article for tips on real kenalog without prescription how to take this form of medication. This indicates that buy atrovent without prescription CGMs may show promise for individuals with diabetes across different order discount nexium online effects ages and health considerations. You should always consult your doctor cialis in uk or another healthcare professional before taking any medication. Researchers and xalatan online stores experts such as the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AAD) buy toradol note a lack of research concerning the safety and effectiveness purchase glucophage of laser treatment for nail fungus. However, blunt trauma that damages.

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.