Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pull-news.sonic-news.com!sb12!feeder3!feeder.news-service.com!postnews.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:47:36 -0500
From: Nite Rider <kitt.karr@big.black.trailer.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: 105 - File 268 of 277 - yEnc "105.rar.par2" 5696 bytes
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:47:56 +1000
Message-ID: <dbpk87tftlknvi956p07kk20a3374n38p6@4ax.com>
References: <4e71239d$0$56705$c3e8da3$4db35a27@news.astraweb.com> <4e714cce$0$4513$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> <m0h4779egbrt9niboir21ln5lnj4bffekb@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 39
X-Trace: sv3-EywO+oeqwI/IvE2j/q3duqln4cJvj8n9TB4nQOO3nLlH7s5AyEHn5gxrXcIaLfgih1E2pzPvFdHxTqs!flS6LmsELiKbj2uuaxs1aB0e6omFtl8JhTup6bbtx1WhVszQUB8eJWbmbjRvD3+VDfwEPJfHvvyB!TYW2vxY=
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2943
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:16094
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:36:40 -0400, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:54:39 GMT, smarkbenner@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>why is there a PW for perfectly harmless photos
>
>Are you aware that some Internet providers are now forbidding certain
>types of pictures that may be considered harmless; I'm not saying that
>this one applies here, but I happen to know that some providers will
>cancel your account if you post ANY picture of a minor without being
>able to provide a legal consent to release.
>
>And if you think they are harmless, the Internet provider in question
>turned over information to local authorities who apparently considered
>this sufficient evidence to secure a search warrant. (I don't believe
>this was the US, but I'm not absolutely sure; laws in the UK and
>Canada are much more restrictive than those in the US.) And having
>searched the person's hard drive, it turns out that he had material on
>said hard drive that was illegal in his locality.
>
>BTW, current precedent in the US says that file encryption does not
>help you. Apparently, the password is NOT protected by the 5th
>Amendment right to not provide incriminating evidence against
>yourself. In short, not providing the password results in you going to
>jail for contempt of court.
>
>Sincerely,
>-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
>
>My email is always available for those looking for and willing to supply support in the effort to remain boy-lovers and not become child-molesters de jure if not de facto.
You might be correct, that a password is not covered by 5th amendment,
however, communications with your lawyer are. Tell your lawyer your
password and it becomes protected speech...
Use the law to your advantage
Nite
|
|