From: sameer <sameer@c2.org>
To: jimbell@pacifier.com (jim bell)
Message Hash: cd1b7d73a4177041a2813a29abc02a3d111bd40d1041b2de3372680adbca5994
Message ID: <199512040715.XAA07095@infinity.c2.org>
Reply To: <m0tMUkO-000950C@pacifier.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-04 07:20:36 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 3 Dec 95 23:20:36 PST
From: sameer <sameer@c2.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 95 23:20:36 PST
To: jimbell@pacifier.com (jim bell)
Subject: Re: "Got a subpoena?"
In-Reply-To: <m0tMUkO-000950C@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <199512040715.XAA07095@infinity.c2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Note that I am assuming the willingness of the phoneco to be UNCOOPERATIVE, at least according to "the spirit of the rules." They could still cooperate according to the LETTER of the law.
It's in the phone company's best interest to be cooperative.
*but* in the case of, say, an internet privacy provider, it is in the
provider's best interest to be uncooperative.
--
sameer Voice: 510-601-9777
Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org/ (or login as "guest") sameer@c2.org
Return to December 1995
Return to “sameer <sameer@c2.org>”