Doctors buy levitra may offer chemotherapy alongside other treatment options, such as radiation, amoxicillin online particularly for people with advanced cancer that has spread to order free ventolin alternative withdrawal distant parts of the body. Since menopause also causes vitamin order amoxicillin in canada D deficiencies, individuals with AS who are going through menopause robaxin no prescription may experience more negative effects of vitamin D deficiency. On order discount cialis online average, guarana contains more caffeine than coffee, which can vary purchase nasonex online depending on the preparation. If you have questions about drinking cephalexin without prescription alcohol while receiving Vabysmo injections, talk with your doctor or order allopurinol pharmacist. In addition to the pain present in one spot, buy mirapex alternatives info there are several additional symptoms that stomach ulcers may cause. buy cialis cheapest alternatives india Treatment may help relieve symptoms as well as slow the cheap atenolol progression of PsA and some of the causes of sacroiliitis. buy clozapine no prescription required There was stronger evidence that resistance training improved bone density cheap viagra no prescription in the lower spine than in other areas, such as clomid prescription the hips. Qualified TCM practitioners may combine dong quai with other.

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.