Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Net privacy, that is the question. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (14)	7/12/1998 9:04:00 AM
From: eWhartHog	Respond to of 43

I don't think SI, entirely American, would be obligated to follow an order from a Canadian court, however an ISP which does business in Canada could be in such a position. The ISP could argue against Canadian jurisdiction in a Canadian court, which would be expensive, or they could comply for almost no cost. If the ISP has no Canadian business activities or assets, they might ignore the order. Companies such as AOL, MSN, and Compuserve have customers in many nations, including Canada. A US ISP or bulletin board would be required to follow any order from a court with jurisdiction, such as US federal courts. There is a case filed in US District Court for Southern NY regarding postings on the Internet Closed End Fund Investor board. ICEFI will have to disclose information as required by this court. I recall more than 10 year ago a US federal judge wanted information about bank accounts in a Caribbean subsidiary of the Bank of Nova Scotia. He indicated BNS could be prohibited from doing business in the US if it did not comply. BNS did release the data to the US court, even though doing so may have violated the law of the Caribbean nation, and the accounts were with a separately incorporated bank. A company with assets in the jurisdiction of a court can be forced to follow that court's orders on worldwide activities if it doesn't want the expense of fighting the orders.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (14)	7/12/1998 9:12:00 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 43

Thread, On the issue of SI posters using aliases to preserve their anonymity, I've just e-mailed Bob (SI Admin) on that very topic. When I first began to post here, I was asking a poster on the Pfizer thread to tone what I considered his obnoxious personal attacks down a couple of notches. He responded by repeatedly using my full name in his succeeding posts, in a manner which I found taunting and a little threatening. My response has been to adopt an alias for use on the threads, while I use my real name in PMs. I continue to think this is a good idea, as evidenced by some of the leering posts on the Women in SI thread. Maybe I've overlooked the "View" feature, but the way some male posters have written about certain women there convinces me that their imaginations are on overdrive. And so I garner a little distance with an alias. How many others do the same (albeit for slightly different reasons?). Poet