[9825] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Drafting Legislation [Yes, He *Is* a Bit Spooky]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barney Wolff)
Sat Jan 22 01:02:59 1994
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 00:53:53 -0500
From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
My last post on this subject, I promise. It's a fascinating question
whether an intelligence agency should (or should be allowed to) collect
information for its own sake, or only with a specific end in view. It
rather reminds me of the debate between basic and applied research, tho
quarks don't have privacy rights and people do.
-------------------- begin forwarded message --------------------
> From barney Sat Jan 22 00:34:53 1994
> From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
> To: Tom Fitzgerald <fitz@wang.com>
> Subject: Re: Drafting Legislation [Yes, He *Is* a Bit Spooky]
> Content-Length: 953
> Status: R
>
> >There's no reason why the CIA should be prohibited from getting domestic
> >open information, but there's no reason why the CIA's budget should be
> >spent on the examination of this information for its own sake either. Its
> >job isn't to record domestic information - why should any hardware or time
> >be paid for to do this?
> >
> >That doesn't mean the CIA should use USENET as a source of intelligence
> >(that doesn't read the way I meant it, but I'll let it stand). That's not
> >its job, and it's a waste of its budget.
>
> If it's collecting info on domestic individuals and groups, I agree that's
> not supposed to be in their charter. But domestic *sources* will often
> have valuable information on foreign issues/individuals/groups/nations,
> and that's certainly within bounds. Posts to USENET are as much part of
> the open literature as "The Economist" and both should surely be available
> to intelligence analysts. IMHO.
>
> Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>
>
-------------------- end of forwarded message --------------------
