Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Austin, Roger" <rda AT rti.org>]

 You usually need a body before it can be called murder or do an
autopsy. Levy has not been located, there is little to no evidence (that
is publicly available) that any foul play exists. Since her family
probably gave permission to go through her apartment, it is probably a
moot point as to whether a court order was necessary to review the
browser cache.
 We all know there are little Nixons about in the world who would love
to know and control everything we do. None of us have anything to hide,
do we? So what's the problem with agents watching what you do? Why don't
we all give a blood sample? (rhetorical questions, not to be taken
seriously...)
 I get really edgy when government wants to know a lot about me so they
can protect me. I would rather err on the side of reduced government
access to information. There is a fine line which needs constant
monitoring.
 Roger (in RTP who remembers the 1960's and is still paranoid about the
gum'nt.)

Don Rua wrote:
> If I was murdered, or my family, I would want authorities to have access to 
> that information to pursue answers.  From a societal viewpoint, I would 
> want the information used to prevent the culprit from killing again. Trying 
> to take the ultimate mass-comm medium and force it into a paradigm of 
> privacy as tight as face-to-face dialogue is something I'm not holding my 
> breath for.
> 
> I see viewing Chandra's web visits as minor compared to doing an autopsy on 
> a murder victim.  If the authorities can poke their fingers around me guts, 
> and run me fluids through analysis, then website visits of a murder victim 
> are hardly shocking revelations to incorporate into my daily behavior.