From: Asma Chandani <asc2106@columbia.edu>
  To  : <cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:10:37 -0400

RE: California, here I come.

Yeah. The 9th Circuit always makes the most sense to me. ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
[mailto:owner-cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Jonah
Bossewitch
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 9:01 PM
To: cpc@emoglen.law.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: California, here I come.


>
> Jonah- what sort of federalism concern are you flagging? It seems
there
> is not any federal act in counterpoise as such.
>

By that I simply meant the federal govt's decision to embed "contactless
chips"
(http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67025,00.html?tw=wn_6polihead)
in
all passports.  While the CA bill does allow for some exceptions, it is
still defiant and provocative in the way it brings this issue to the
forefront of people's attention.  Not to mention that I am sure homeland
security doesn't want to stop at Passports....

Seems like a state vs federal issue to me.  Someone was trying to
explain
the California anomaly to me by pointing out that the 9th circuit is
quite
out of sync with the rest of the courts in the country, but I am just
beginning to get a handle on how and why this matters.

/Jonah


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list