People discount lipitor can speak with a doctor if these side effects cause buy online stores issues or do not stop after completing the course of buy cheap dexamethasone online antibiotics. Regular coffee drinkers must wean themselves off caffeine gradually buy azor to avoid potentially triggering a withdrawal-induced migraine. However, consuming too amikacin prescription much caffeine may lead to chronic migraine, as sudden caffeine colchicine price withdrawal and a subsequent migraine trigger could become more likely. tizanidine sale Feverfew is a small white flower that some people use purchase generic buy alternatives problems to make tea, which may help with arthritis, fevers, headaches, order cheapest amikacin dose and migraine. However, all types of migraine begin in the cheapest discount price brain, meaning that ocular migraine episodes are not ocular in get cheap sale online effects nature. Certain elements of a person's daily life, environment, and for in uk diet can trigger a retinal migraine episode. A person should viagra in australia speak with their doctor about the best lifestyle changes and gentamicin eye drops prescription medications for their needs. Some medications — like calcium-channel blockers, antidepressants,.

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.