[47172] in Cypherpunks
Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Graves)
Sun Jan 14 10:14:14 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 02:59:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <m0tbMrS-0008xFC@pacifier.com>
On Sat, 13 Jan 1996, jim bell wrote:
> 1. Individual private citizens acting on their own deserve privacy and
> anonymity.
> 2. Government employees receiving paychecks based on tax dollars stolen
> from members of the public do not.
Disregarding the high-falutin' diction, why not?
Certainly, expose everything they do at work, but I don't see that
tracking someone down personally serves any purpose.
> 3. Individuals not harming others deserve privacy and anonymity.
> 4. Government employees threatening citizens with large fines and jail
> time, for doing what we consider right and good, do not.
I strongly disagree, and the fact that it's a government is irrelevant.
Everybody deserves privacy: criminals, government employees, and people
you like as well. Of course, you have the right to investigate any person,
in keeping with the law. Public figures must give up some privacy to help
ensure that they are not involved in blatant (I did say blatant) conflicts
of interest, and they lose certain points in libel cases, but it should
not go beyond that.
-rich
"Microsoft has opted not to include certain components of NT in the
evaluation process, not because they would not pass the evaluation,
but to save time by reducing the load on the NSA."
C2 Evaluation and Certification for Windows NT
http://www.microsoft.com/kb/bussys/winnt/q93362.htm
[Whether they mean saving load on the testing team or on
subsequent NSA investigations involving NT machines is not
specified.]
