From: Eric Fogleman <Eric.Fogleman@analog.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 10:50:13 PST
To: deltorto@aol.com
Subject: Re: privacy vs. public servants
Message-ID: <9301221847.AA01967@ack.adstest.analog.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Responding to Tom DeBoni's message concerning whether or not
government officials should have a right to secure communications.

> I submit that the amount of (real or potential) oversight should be
> somehow proportional to the potential for harm or abuse of power
> available to the individual involved. Surely Ollie North or Richard
> Nixon had much greater abilities to subvert the democratic process or
> otherwise break the law than Professor Smith of the Chemistry Dept. of
> State U.

Agreed!

I agree with Dave Deltorto's idea about "a body that decided on a case
by case (or a class by class) basis what accounts would be subject to
heavy scrutiny".  Or perhaps limiting certain public servants (the
chief executive, Oliver North's successor, etc) to a set of 
"open" computing systems and communication paths.  (Similar to limiting
people with security clearances to sets of closed computing systems, 
communication paths.)

Dave says:

> Unfortunately, this begins to create a overseeing body so
> huge and convolute as to render the entire process unwieldly 
> approaching on the absurd. I read Kafka's "The Trial" and I don't 
> want to face that sort of Juggernaut any time soon.   

Unwieldy?  Kafka-esque?  Expensive?  Possibly, but it doesn't have to
be that way.  As Bongo says:  "The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance."  How much do you want to pay?

Eric Fogleman