[47360] in Cypherpunks
Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Davis)
Wed Jan 17 01:14:09 1996
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 01:04:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
To: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Cc: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <199601152213.RAA19247@universe.digex.net>
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Scott Brickner wrote:
> s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca writes:
> >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?
>
> I agree with Charlie. These government employees claim to be working
> for the american taxpayers, of which group I am a member. Government
> agents must, therefore, expect to be accountable to the citizens, while
^^^^^^^^^^^
That all depends, of course, by what you mean by "accountable."
And government employees are also taxpayers ...
And what of those using government-funded
scholarships/computers/univerisities/roads & bridges/etc.
Perhaps all should be "accountable." Wouldn't want to waste bridge use!
> accountability in the other direction is virtually the definition of
> tyranny.
>
EBD
