From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 11:49:21 PST
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941213084419.21682B-100000@crl6.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Bob Snyder's recent post suggested that my argument in favor of
wiring the cops could be use to support wiring of civilians or
employees.  Not so.

Police are public officials.  As such, they have no right to
privacy *with respect to their public acts*.  When off duty, cops
have the same right as other citizens to privacy in their private
lives.  I said my proposal was "anti- *bad* cop" and that it
would benefit good cops.  Do I need to say that it would only
benefit good cops in the line of duty?  It would be bad for
anyone--cops or civilians--in their private lives.

Employees represent an intermediate position.  If an employer is
foolish enough to require that employees be wired, 'sokay with
me.  For most employees in most jobs, it would not be acceptable.
I think they would get jobs with less intrusive employers.  Some
employers will wire some employees, whether or not the police are
wired.  Wiring the cops is a good idea; arguments about wiring
employees and citizens are nothing more than red herrings used to
avoid addressing the real issue of police accountability.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~