[Refuses to allow herself to be photographed? Whatever happened to standing on a public sidewalk outside the court house and taking a photo as the judge is on her way in? --Declan] ---- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:41:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "J.D. Abolins" <jda-irat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: An example of separate "privacy" priviledges Today's New York Post's cover story is about a judge who refuses to allow herself to be photographed but who has insisted upon undercover cops to take stand in open court sessions (instead of the more common close court sessions). The only valid argument I could see in the judge claiming more "privacy" than the undercover police officers is that they are more likely to be armed. But even with NYC's firearms laws, she can rectify that. <g> The cover page image is at http://www.nypost.com/images/front072402.gif and the article is at http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/53283.htm J.D. Abolins ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 03:32:07 PDT
