At 07:01 11/06/2013 +1000, Harry Feldman wrote:
>Indeed, does anything preclude the NSA from subscribing?
Not that I'm aware of, nor GCHQ (nor any employees thereof, under whatever
pseudonyms), nor anyone else.
As I wrote earlier (and agreeing with Julian's subsequent points), I think
this apparent knee-jerk response to what is currently in the news has
missed the point. Anyone who thinks that they can keep the archives of
on-line lists (even 'private ones') secret from security agencies (should
they have any interest in the lists) is simply not being realistic. The
question is whether we want the general public (including those with a
professional interest, worldwide) to have access to list archives -
something which, as JISCMail pointed out in their recent announcement, is
arguably desirable.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|