1996-01-17 - Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?

Header Data

From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
To: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Message Hash: 6e8b425617620d452256895754e0f5dd9e8307dccfbb8f6a0dac14a1373b546d
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960117010112.10123E-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
Reply To: <199601152213.RAA19247@universe.digex.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-17 14:17:41 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:17:41 +0800

Raw message

From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 22:17:41 +0800
To: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
In-Reply-To: <199601152213.RAA19247@universe.digex.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960117010112.10123E-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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.