George, you wrote:
> I have some reservations about Big Corporation
> taking a snapshot of my screen. ...

Geez, I thought we were past that.  The other
respondents had made it real clear that this is
out of line, so I didn't even address it.  Let
me just add my voice to the chorus:

 Ain't NO way they could get away with that.
 Besides, it would be blocked by browser options in
 many cases.  Even if enabled, the snap process
 might run out of memory trying to create 100-500K
 bytes of image data, depending on how much
 information they were willing to lose.  ;-)
 It might try to compress the image on a slow CPU;
 or it might tie up a dial-up connection for a while
 trying to upload the picture.

 But even if they were to succeed, they couldn't
 prove that the member had any part in it.  It's just
 silly cloak-and-dagger theatrics to go sneaking
 around inside the member's private property so they
 can look over his shoulder as he signs the agreement.

All *I* wrote about was how they could achieve the
same ends without resorting to hidden cameras and
secret handshakes on the client side.  The server
has ALL the information it needs to meet both the
practical need and any legalistic requirements;
and this with virtually no reliance on the members'
browser options, memory size, CPU speed or bandwidth.

Vic