[47186] in Cypherpunks
Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim bell)
Sun Jan 14 18:51:00 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:24:45 -0800
To: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>, cypherpunks@toad.com
From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
At 02:59 AM 1/14/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote:
>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.
Tell that to Simon Weisenthal, who (until his recentconversion to statism)
was under the impression that tracking down people who did bad things for
the government was not only acceptable, but in fact laudatory.
>> 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.
Since government is funded by stolen dollars, it ISN'T irrelevant.
>Everybody deserves privacy: criminals,
I agree, to the extent that an unconvicted person who happens to be a
criminal is also an ordinary citizen.
> government employees,
I _Disagree_, especially after they've committed crimes for the government.
> and people
>you like as well. Of course, you have the right to investigate any person,
>in keeping with the law.
If "the law" is used to protect government-employed criminals, then the law
is wrong and we should disregard that portion of it.
