Gregg wrote:That was kind of my point, that the way it is worded kind of hints at something that may be embarassing when it might not be, or maybeb it is. Suppose it is just his social security number and and bank account PIN, information that is "information of a highly personal nature" but could have just been stated as "personal identity and financial information"....
What I was saying was the way they say it puts the "uh oh" thoughts into the heads of many who read it...and I admit I DID think right away "Porn" but maybe I just have a corrupted mind.
Maybe I have an uncorrupted mind, but I didn't read it that way.
It looks as though Riley was looking for a full disclosure by the government of everything they seized. The government responded by saying that they don't think they should disclose what they found on the computer in a filing on a public docket because what they found is not relevant to the case and is personal, and they think Riley would not want it made public. I don't see any suggestion that it was porn, because it could be any kind of personal correspondence, or personal writings or diaries, or something else which was obviously not mean to be published.
And if it is porn, so what? If the people involved are of legal age, then no significant laws have been violated and the government would still be right to keep it confidential while providing some vague and indefinite explanation for why they think it should not be disclosed in a public filing. (Referring to it as "personal identity information" would then create an inference in future cases that any description other that "personal identity information" means "porn," so you just can't win when you're trying to avoid negative inferences.)
So I think "information of a highly personal nature" means just that. Something that Riley didn't intend to be public, wouldn't want to be public, and shouldn't be public, and that's all we need to know.
