What is Digg?57 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Does it protect against capture screen?
- scheper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19if you disable javascript after opening the email, it couldn't self destruct anymore.
- e2superman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23I like the Prt Scr button on my keyboard. Hacked by common sense.
Million Dollar Software defeated by Print Screen.... priceless. - aywwts4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"A recipient is instructed to use only the up/down arrow keys or scroll bar to read the message; any other keystroke causes the message to expire instantly, which removes the message from the screen and prevents the recipient from accessing it again."
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15What this kind of protection achieves is stopping casual or non-malicious infringement that exists because of lack of education. Malicious infringement will always win through because if someone can see it, they can copy it.
- jimripper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12PGP doesn't do self-destructing emails.
- harmlessinc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Great a reason to start reading email in the VMWare virtual machine interface...
- SuperMank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Writing it down, using text-based email, using a camera?
This may deter some people(newbies?) from copying stuff for a little while, but sooner or later email clients are going to bypass this automatically. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Marking INACCURATE
This is retarded. This is just that thing they advertise on the radio all the time. It amounts to nothing more than preying on people stupid enough to think that you can truly control or retrieve an email once it is sent. Frankly, they should be sued for the misleading advertising and services. - harmlessinc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Much like methods of DRM it only deters the causal copying of information. Anyone who really wants to will find ways around the protections.
- LucasVB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Bah, this sort of thing only works with people who are not computer savvy. Any remotely advanced user could exploit the system with simple tricks.
The only way to make these messages truly secure would be introducing specific software for it for both sides, or simply use a true encryptation technique. - PurpleMeteor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8And if you add this hilarious part: "Mr. Currier, who says that leaked information could be disastrous for one of their patent applications.", they are trying to protect their precious intellectual property and trade secrets with some crappy JavaScript.
- kalmi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6no, really, if I don't need any special software to read a "Self-Destructing Email", it must be using some old tricks....
- GraemeL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@blacksh33p
Similar snake oil systems have been around since the .com era: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/cyber/articles/13mail.html
From the article:
Dan Wallach, a professor of computer science at Rice University in Houston, said that these companies all face the same problem as the music industry, which is trying to discourage large-scale duplication of copyrighted music files. "To a certain extent, it's theoretically impossible to do what they're trying to do. " he said. "It just keeps honest people honest."
Your claim about screen captures being unreliable as compared to any other type of digital information because they can be photoshopped is patently ridiculous. Email can be submitted in evidence and that is just stored as bits on a disk that can be manipulated while leaving none of the traces that can be revealed by statistical analysis of photoshopped images.
At best, this supplies nothing more than the illusion of security. At worst, it's nothing more than snake oil. - jcurran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Even that won't work with next version, which requires your unique brain resistance between the included electrode kit. Once you close the window, the electroshocks begin, permanently erasing your memory of the content (along with the fact that you might even own a camera, your name, and lots more)
I hear that RIAA is also excited about the possibilities... ;-) - Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@blacksh33p
Well, then you need new legal representation, because they are patently wrong. Capturing your in transit data, especially signed, is irrefutable proof. You can thank Bill Clinton for the legality of digital signatures.
You can say "not 100%". You can say "improved security". So just come out and say it: The self-destruct function is for the casual user and only works against the technologically inept.
Expect criticism here, /., and any other tech related site as soon as you use the phrases "self-destruct" or "secure". You are talking about communications DRM, and that opens up more cans of worms than just how well it works, which I didn't even get into. You challenged the methods of others (with the "not 100%" disclaimer, but talked about fixing the issues found), and I gave you a scenario that you cannot protect against and is not plausibly deniable. You're Bigfoot analogy doesn't not apply here. This is capturing native data signed by your organization (if its not signed with SSL, so much for the "secure" part) and logged at multiple points.
But let me go even further.
You said, "Why should e-mail be excluded from that level of privacy/control?"
Because people don't like being controlled by others.
To give you an analogy, it's like a house guest. When data comes into my computer/server, it is like a person entering my house. It uses my resources (bathroom, couch, tv), but only at my whim. As long as they are in my house, they follow my rules. The moment someone says that they want to turn my tv up loud and start the shower, and only under those conditions will they visit with me, that's the moment I kick them out. I may not own them, but I certainly own all of the resources they are using, and I have unfettered control over how I wish them to be used, including preventing them from coming in via stealth. I don't let people enter my house wearing ski masks and rubbing down my furniture to remove their fingerprints.
As for the rest...
"iklol: I never said I was cutting edge, and bash me all you want for spelling errors, I have been up for 22 hour straight now (I thought the petty spelling error insult went out of style with /.)"
Well, first, the name is Ikioi, no L's... so touche on the "petty insults". Spelling represents professionalism, etiquette, and courtesy.
The story is pointing to patent lawyers looking for confidentiality of product designs. Do you honestly think this product is adequate protection for them? Sure, it may be good to try and stop Mary Maiden from forwarding your nude picture to your wife, but it is not the type of thing lawyers should be using when their client's confidentiality is at stake.
I'm not JUST targeting you. In fact, I think services from the other companies, charging $5-8/mo are setting themselves up for either a lawsuit or more likely have pages and pages of super tiny print legal disclaimers about being "not 100%".
The problem is saying one thing and meaning another. "Self-Destructing! (but not really, not all the time, not 100%)" That's like saying "No Spam! (except on day's of the week ending in 'day')" It's deceptive, and when revealed, just a lot to do over not much.
Am I mocking your service (and others)? YES! ABSOLUTELY! WITH FULL CONTEMPT!
From your site: "Superior Privacy" "Solid Security" "You Now have TOTAL CONTROL!"
"Unheard of control over your email" ? Really? "Full control of the e-mail you
send out." No kidding? "gives you something you never thought possible" Honest to goodness?
Wow, it doesn't even hint at "not 100%" anywhere. It says, total control, full control, unheard of control... Ah wait, there it is... "we do not make any warranties, representations, or guarantees related to the service." And all this time, I thought those were rock solid statements.
So I guess you just turn off the BS when confronted by geeks? No need to unnecessarily scare the suits, eh? - paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The only way to make these messages truly secure would be introducing specific software for it for both sides"
Except for SuperMank's work-arounds below.. - caliform, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Actually, it gets sillier:
In addition to preventing alteration of email and letting the sender destroy messages, the service also allows senders to track when an email was opened, the recipient's Internet protocol address, and how long he or she viewed the message, says John Flanagan, chief technology officer of CDS Technologies LLC, the Delray Beach, Fla., company that designed Kablooey.
In other words; it's not an email, it's a SMTP spoof to let someone think the email is sent by you, and the mail then, in fact, is an embedded link to open a website in an iframe or without... That's pretty simple. I use secure browser settings (w/o Java and JS enabled) and Tor, good luck getting any information from that. I don't think this will be all that deterring to simply write a script that pulls the plaintext of the email from the memory or, HEY, the browser cache? Plus, if you can't do keystrokes, you can use 'Save as'. Completely retarded. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In soviet Russia emails take your screen-shot.
- blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hi guys, John Flanagan here (Kablooeymail.com). This whole article was a big surprise for me as we are still running a beta and just took the call Monday. I nearly fell out of my chair when it seen it on the top of Digg, having just got off the plane into San Fran tonight and firing up the laptop to catch up on my daily dose of Diggcrack.
Wanted to address a few things. Self Destructing E-mail is only one of a few features we have implemented and are continuing to develop. The WSJ article didn't elude to that as I had hoped it would. While it is certainly not a "million dollar piece of software" (hah! I wish!) we are doing the best we can and really hope to improve on all aspects of the service. E-mail is so archaic compared other Internet protocols/services, and has not kept up with the progression that the web has shown. Ultimately, the functionality we are trying to create as with the other companies out there mentioned, should be common place and readily available, but alas they are not.
Thanks for reading this, and for the input and constructive criticism, it is very helpful to me and I appreciate all of it. - velhi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Digital information will always be free. If you can view it, you can copy it. And actually that's how it should be with all sources of information as well, but with non-digital information you have physical media which you can deny access to. Every technology, DRM or any other scam, stating otherwise is just pulling smoke and mirrors. It's insulting and disgusting what the big greedy corporations are trying to force onto us. At least we can be grateful that they're all fail in the end.
- inveterate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31. Create a beta account on Kablooey
2. Send a protected email to your gmail acct.
3. Open the email
4. Click the link to the text on Kablooey.
5. hit print screen
6. watch the cute explosion graphic
7. paste the image of the screen shot of the email into any word processor, or graphic editing program.
Not wasting your money on hype: priceless. - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the reason this wont work is because i, along with everyone else savvy enough to use digg, will merely reject any emails sent via this "secure" method. eventually, all of the people who jump on the bandwagon of this, who think it is the best thing since web 2.0, will realize that none of their IT guys are reading their emails and stop.
to me, this is just like return receipts. i don't play that game, and neither should anyone here. - Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@blacksh33p
"Yes, you can take a real camera and photograph the screen. However that is not the real data, nor is a digital version ala .bmp the real message either. They are facimiles that could be easily faked. We are speaking in the context of using this for legal purposes..." etc.
*cough*For a 'cutting-edge' tech company, you should use the spell check function*cough*
Yeah, I'm pretty sure if I use the video output on my video card to a DVD recorder, it'll hold up in court, showing the headers and all. I could include in the output the direct data feed of my network card, showing the data transferred (and if it's over SSL, it's encrypted with your service's key, if not over SSL, you can get ISP cache logs), so yes, it is very easy to prove 100% by any expert witness, in court, under oath, and threat of their private parts being severed, what the content was.
"But again, the article painted only one picture of us. The other features serve their purpose too..." You mean confirming receipt of email? That's ridiculously simple, by just creating a service that embeds a linked file, like an image on a remote server, and logs its access. I was creating emails with hidden CGI counter images over a decade ago, so that I could see how many reads my emails were getting (my use was for group mailings).
Yeah, I've heard this mantra again and again and again. The two holy grails of email: spam-free, secure from prying eyes.
Services promise one or both, none yet deliver. But yeah, develop all you want. You'll always have naive business people to dupe. The easiest ones to dupe are ones like this patent lawyer: '"I really need it to be easy for the client on the other end," says Mr. Currier, who says that leaked information could be disastrous for one of their patent applications. "People don't appreciate just how vulnerable email is."'
They think because they have concern, and took action that most didn't, that they are somehow on the cutting edge and "in the know". These same people are duped by used car salesmen who talk them up about the importance of timing belts and oxygen to fuel ratios, making them think they are smarter than they really are.
Hook - Complete control who reads your email.
Line - Simple and requires no software.
Sinker - It's all smoke and mirrors. - Garda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not to try and spread free software propaganda, but this is a great example of where you aren't using your computer, but where your computer uses you (for some reason i get this feeling that i need to mention something about soviet Russia). At least it would be if it weren't so incredibly easy to circumvent.
I found RMS' article very interesting when i first read it.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html - Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Parent post is right: "Now why should I stop using PGP, which has implemented this tampering protection along with strong encryption for years?"
FTA: "New Services Help Safeguard
Outbound Messages Against
Forwarding and Tampering"
PGP doesn't stop forwarding (which is impossible), but does stop tampering of signed messages. PGP tamper protection is infinitely stronger than whatever JS rigged contraption these snake oil sellers came up with. - GraemeL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@blacksh33p
Having thought about this in some more detail, the attack surface is huge.
Your own mail server uses TLS where available, this is good, but far from good enough. There is no guarantee that the original submission to your server will come from a system that supports TLS and it is pretty unlikely that the mail client of the user will have its own digital certificate to encrypt the transfer between the client and the user's own mail server. Result, a determined party has a good chance of being able to grab the original message before it even reaches your service.
Once they reach your servers, are the messages stored in an encrypted format. If not, they are open to insider attacks which are the most common type of attack. If they are encrypted, who has access to the keys and can they be implicitly trusted?
When forwarding the link to the stored message, your server will again use TLS if it is available. If it is not available, then it could be intercepted anywhere along the path between servers. Even if this part is encrypted, you have no guarantee that the server you delivered it to is the final destination and if it will encrypt any onward forwarding of the message to get it to the receiver. At least interception at this stage would be obvious to the intended receiver as the message would already have been viewed, but your secrets are now in the hands of an unknown party.
The only way that your system could stop these attacks is by ensuring that the original message and the link to the message stored on your server are encrypted end-to-end, but in order to achieve that, you're almost certainly going to have to build a system that isn't compatible with existing SMTP clients.
Finally. Yes, the current email system needs a major rework, but better minds than us have been thinking about the problem for years without coming up with a viable solution that remains compatible with existing infrastructure. The likelihood that a start-up company is going to come along with /the/ solution is fairly small. - Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I do not like return reciepts so I disable them and do not acknowledge.
I do not like Tracking images in e-mail so I disable all images except those encoded directly into the message itself (IE no remote access)
I do not like authenticated messages. If I send you a message and I get a bounce back with a request to confirm my identity I delete it and I forget you.
If I get an e-mail with a LINK to read the actual e-mail I delete it and mark it as spamm. Period.
I control my mail. My terms not yours don't like it ? your only recourse is to not communiate with me via e-mail. No negotiations. - blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Graemel:
While I am not a professor, I do not think this is theoretically impossible. But a much BIGGER issue has to be addressed. Yes, this is not 100%. Yes, this does not solve all the problems. Could they be solved someday? Should they? Absolutely. The issue with e-mail being limited in it's abilities should be addressed. The insecurity and lack of functionality absolutely should change. It is far more naive to think that something "can't" change, much less "won't". But this is a stepping stone. If it turns out people do find themselves feeling this way, then I hope this could grow into something bigger that addresses the much wider issues. I see no harm in that at all.
Regardless, we are trying to provide a level of security/functionality/features above what is "commonly" available. Nothing more, nothing less. We make no claims otherwise. I do not feel this is a false sense of security, because we actually are providing a level above and beyond what is normally available. And again, I see no harm in that.
On the digital capture side, I am speaking only from knowledge of what was researched by legal representation and presented back to me when we asked the same question.
Perhaps I used a bad analogy, but legally, if we are not required to store the messages after they self destruct, and do not keep backups of those messages readily available, then simply having a screen grab of something that could not otherwise be substantiated, will have an unlikely possibility of being admissible. Can it be proved in a court of law that BigFoot is real just because someone has a digital photo of him? My interpretation and what was explained to me is that the answer would be no, you could not.
iklol: I never said I was cutting edge, and bash me all you want for spelling errors, I have been up for 22 hour straight now (I thought the petty spelling error insult went out of style with /.)
Same response to you on the other items.
We will continue to develop, and try our best to innovate, and hopefully, who knows, people might wake up and realize that e-mail does need an overhaul. I won't apologize for trying to do something about it, no matter the outcome. Actions, for me, still speak louder then words.
On that note, good night and thanks again for the input. - rauz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree. People who digg you down are just uninformed.
- blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Its not us on the radio...I assure you. :) However, you CAN in fact control it after it is sent.
- biffta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because email was never designed to be secure thats why.
- flark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, after reading the comments here, you will find a way to prevent people from making a screen shot?
- peterredding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what happens to visually impaired users when their screen reader tries to read the mail? If a screen reader can read it out then surely it can rewrite it to an external file. If so, could you use a screen reading emulator to fool the e-mail into thinking it's being read by a screen reader?
If screen readers cause the e-mail to self destruct straight away then they ought to brace themselves for lawsuits over accessibility issues. - vanmeir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Blacksh33p/Mr. Flanagan:
First, thanks for stopping by to talk about your product. You're a brave PR man. That said, I do have a few criticisms of Kablooeymail.
You acknowledge, of course, that your product doesn't provide perfect security; you say that Kablooeymail provides some improvement over regular email, and surely that must be a good thing. That begs the question, however, of whether the people using Kablooeymail understand what they're getting, and what they're not getting. Your web site tells customers that they "now have TOTAL CONTROL" over the emails they send through your system, and that "your meails can only be read for so long," when in fact, neither of those things may be true, depending on the circumstances.
Also, the value of your "certified" mail is unclear to me. It seems to me that all you can prove is that the email you sent was received. However, the way Kablooeymail works, there's no content in the email -- the content is on the web page that comes up when you click the link. So proving that the email was received doesn't establish anything worthwhile, unless you can also prove what was on that temporary web page. And from your comments, it sounds like that web page is not retained.
Let's take an example. Let's say you're in a contract that allows you to terminate it by giving notice. You want to be able to prove you sent the notice, so you use certified Kablooeymail to send a message that says, "I hereby terminate our contract." Suppose that the other party gets the email and does, in fact, click the link. Now, if the other party later claims he never got notice of termination, Kablooeymail can help, right?
Except it can't, unless I'm missing something. Kablooeymail can say, "yes, the email was sent, and it must have been received, because they clicked on the special link." But the email doesn't say anything about terminating the contract. It just says "so and so has sent you a message, click here to see it." The other guy can say, "yeah, I clicked on that link, and a message popped up that said 'we love your service and want to keep using it.' So the contract was never terminated." Now you're back where you started, in a he-said-she-said argument about what message was sent.
And here's another pitfall. Suppose you send that termination notice by certified Kablooeymail. Now, suppose the other party gets it and DOESN'T click on the link. After all, there's no law that says you have to click on links in emails people send you. Now, not only did you not deliver notice of termination to the other guy (since he never saw your secret message) -- but you've given the other guy PROOF that he didn't get notice. Because he can say, "look at Kablooeymail's records -- they show I never accessed your message"; and since the email itself said nothing about termination, it's established that no notice of termination was given.
I'm not claiming that your service is useless, but there are some significant risks involved, and I wonder if your users understand them. - spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you use webmail it won't work I'm betting...
- JackDoyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1self-destructing-email.com did this years ago. Old news.... but digg anyways.
- vanmeir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1bsee:
I agree. My point was that I don't see how Kablooey mail improves things over sending a regular mail. In fact, given that Kablooey apparently doesn't keep the actual message, email might be more traceable. As you note, deleting an email, at least in a corporate environment, is often harder than people think (due to backups, etc.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great to see all the energy being poured out over this idea of outbound email security. As this article describes the preloaded software on our computers does a fair job of protecting us from spam and inbound email, but makes not attempt at protecting the outbound email we send. Think about the information we include in our outbound emails! And with no security measures, its crazy! In any case, it is great see people begin to step up and take action towards greater security and email freedom. I would like to spread the word about another product available to business and even home consumers. Essential Security Software's Taceo performs all of the various functions described in the other three programs discussed in the article and offers a free trial. Check it out at http://www.essentialsecurity.com/
- blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5On Print Screen and other manual (camera/writing it down/etc) circumventions: Nothing is 100% secure, we make no claims of this. The protection scheme we are working on for screen capturing and the like, while not 100% secure, will at least add something above and beyond the current means. And no, it is not just simply JS and iFrames, it may use some old tricks for some things, but we have plenty of new ones. We are still beta and actively developing too, so expect some new stuff to be out shortly.
Yes, you can take a real camera and photograph the screen. However that is not the real data, nor is a digital version ala .bmp the real message either. They are facimiles that could be easily faked. We are speaking in the context of using this for legal purposes.
If you were using this for malicious purposes, it woud be no different then Photoshopping someone into a picture they were never in, it can not be trusted as accurate representation where as a downloaded/stored e-mail message via Outlook with headers and the means to trace it back through multiple mail servers could be.
There are a couple other uses for self destructing messages and I think it is implied that in general you would only want to use for this sending someone, hypothetically, something like a nasty letter. Not so. Time sensitve information for one. Also, the recipients of your messages are assumed to be trusted to some degree. You may simply not want the data stored on their computer and other points between, as well as your own.
But again, the article painted only one picture of us. The other features serve their purpose too... - blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2jcurran: How did you get a hold of that information! The Kablooey Electrode Mind Wiper bundle is still in the experimental stages. We haven't married it to the 1950's era black and white spinning hypnosis wheel of mind control imaging system yet, and no one is supposed to know about it!
I love digg...:) - kalmi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Could anybody tell me how it works?
Is it loading the content of the e-mails from an external site by javascript or iframe? - blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Man was not designed to fly either, but I spent 7 hours on a plane today....g'night
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You will see only the hashed text, idiot. :D
- bsee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The "using email has evidence problems" scare-tactic marketing has always puzzled me. In the "termination notice" scenario that vanmeir sent, what if the message was sent via plain old SMTP mail? If you sit down in court and claim you never got the email, the lawyer on the other side will present into evidence testimiony that the email was sent and the copy of the sent email from the sender's computer/server. They might even have log entries from the sender's mail server..
The other side will request copies of the received message in discovery (think subpoena). They may be able to look at the message headers showing more evidence of the receipt of the message. If it was deleted, might it be recovered from a backup tape? Or from a forensic analysis of the cached space on the disk? Or a Blackberry? All of this can make the "I didn't receive it" assertion hard to make. It's all evidence that a jury (or judge) gets to weigh. All of these "certified email" services just add an extra layer.
Remember, in civil litigation the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence". Noit "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criminal standard). SO just because there MIGHT be an email forger out there who can forge headers, etc. doesn't absolve you from civil liability. - blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That is a matter of opinion, and I respect yours. But, as owner of the information on your computer, do you feel you have a right to protect that? What about the websites you design, or servers you manage (gathering you are a web/it guy). I can only assume you do not leave your servers sitting on the net with default passwords, and the files on your PC are not sitting on an FTP site for anyone you come in contact with to have the ability to use, for whatever purpose, as they see fit.
Why should e-mail be excluded from that level of privacy/control? - rajulkabir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tried to sign up for this ridiculous service, I could't even do it - the registration thing rejected my email address as "invalid" (it takes the form xxx-xxxxx@x.xx where the x's are all letters, and it's perfectly valid and has worked for over 10 years).
- Chrysalid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Now why should I stop using PGP, which has implemented this tampering protection along with strong encryption for years?
- blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Caliform: It is a little bit more complicated than that. But on the "getting information" side, again, they wrote the article and painted a picture. What I think Andrew was trying to get across is the "certification" option. We do log the standard information that we can access, and if it is spoofed or anonymous (Tor) so be it. However the purpose of the Certification is to prove that the mail passed through us, was delivered to the intended recipients mai account, and someone with access to that mail account, undeniably opened the message. And that, we can provide an affadavit for, and it could be used in a court of law. So it doesn't matter if you used Tor or not, in the context of how that feature is used.
- blacksh33p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1vanmeir: Thank for the input, especially since it is in such a constructive manner.
Perhaps the wording on the website is too strong, and will certainly take that under advisement.
On the certification feature, the message is stored so the message remains available and is included with the affidavit. It actually logs from the web level through the message viewer, so we can determine it was opened and displayed, and what precisely was displayed. This is the design...during the "BETA" which other people seem to look over and fail to realize, we are testing the design, making improvements, getting excellent input like yours, and making the necessary adjustments. The options are not inherent to one another, and its up to you to configure how the message goes out. That is where we are going with the control aspect.
bsee: Very valid points indeed, and you hit the nail on the head. It adds an extra layer. In civil litigation, I think it would certainly help to have that extra layer, which translates into less time and less money being paid to the lawyers.
Thanks again all... -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is