peterm@halcyon.UUCP (11/19/90)
From sumax!compuserve.com!postmaster Sat Nov 17 14:06:10 1990 remote from halcyon Received: by halcyon.uucp (1.63/waf) via UUCP; Sat, 17 Nov 90 15:20:30 PST for peterm Received: from beaver.cs.washington.edu by sumax.seattleu.edu with SMTP id AA01856 (5.64+/IDA-1.3.4 for peterm); Sat, 17 Nov 90 14:06:10 -0800 Received: from saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu by beaver.cs.washington.edu (5.64/7.0) id AA18789; Sat, 17 Nov 90 14:02:16 -0800 Return-Path: <postmaster@compuserve.com> Received: by saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.901029) id AA08989; Sat, 17 Nov 90 17:02:14 -0500 Date: 17 Nov 90 16:40:48 EST From: Electronic Postmaster <sumax!compuserve.com!POSTMASTER> To: <beaver.cs.washington.edu!sumax!halcyon!peterm> Subject: Re: ? EMDNRM - Mail Delivery Failure. No room in mailbox. >EPX [71361,370] Re: Privacy Message-Id: <"901117214047 515664.456256 EHJ136-27"@CompuServe.COM> Re: ? EMDNRM - Mail Delivery Failure. No room in mailbox. >EPX [71361,370] Re: Privacy Your message could not be delivered as addressed. --- Returned message --- Sender: info-futures-request@encore.com Received: from MULTIMAX.ENCORE.COM by saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.901029) id AA06236; Sat, 17 Nov 90 16:21:18 -0500 Received: by encore.encore.com (5.64/25-eef) id AA10588; Sat, 17 Nov 90 16:12:14 -0500 Received: from ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU by encore.encore.com with SMTP (5.64/25-eef) id AA10556; Sat, 17 Nov 90 16:11:58 -0500 Received: by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (5.63/1.42) id AA07947; Sat, 17 Nov 90 12:58:09 -0800 Received: from USENET by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU with netnews for info-futures-mail@encore.com (info-futures@encore.com) (contact usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU if you have questions) Date: 17 Nov 90 19:19:54 GMT From: beaver.cs.washington.edu!sumax!halcyon!peterm Organization: halcyon Subject: Re: Privacy Message-Id: <VVoss2w163w@halcyon.uucp> Sender: info-futures-request@encore.com To: info-futures@encore.com Further to Michael Urban's post of 11/16, reacting to Andrea Long-- Michael's point about the CA Constituion and(its's not "perhaps")about state constitutions somewhat more generally, is a very good, and important, one. A number of states, including PA and WA, have privacy provisions in their consts. similar to CA's, and some good things have come from this. On another level, such good things have been an affair of the tendency for state supreme courts to be somewhat more progressive than the US Supremes and the Fed. Const. itself, in the privacy area. There are some good specific examples.