[47162] in Cypherpunks
Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel R. Oelke)
Sun Jan 14 00:33:07 1996
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 23:20:53 CST
From: droelke@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Daniel R. Oelke)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com, s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
> From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
>
> My apologies for responding to a political post.
>
> On Sat, 13 Jan 1996, Charlie Merritt wrote:
>
> > I feel that public exposure
> > is enough to put fear into these anonymous government employees.
> > You will note that when they get the mad_bomber
> > some FBI guy jumps right up and takes credit, live, on TV.
> > But when the Air Force orders a $300 toilet seat NO ONE is credited.
>
> It's interesting how we advocate anonymity for ourselves but not for our
> opponents. Feeling righteous?
There is a *big* difference between anonymity for individuals, and
anonymity for government officials acting in the name of the government.
Government has no right to privacy. Individuals do.
> Reminds me of the bit from True Names about all the warlocks trying to
> crack each other's nyms to enslave each other. Sad?
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems
droelke@aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX
