1996-01-14 - Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?

Header Data

From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 8f3ad0519cbf45d6fe62d7e9eccaebb2d4e5bd929c103dfba7da9f8623316079
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9601132350.A15455-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
Reply To: <199601140345.VAA26416@intellinet.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-14 05:04:49 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 21:04:49 PST

Raw message

From: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 96 21:04:49 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
In-Reply-To: <199601140345.VAA26416@intellinet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9601132350.A15455-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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?

Reminds me of the bit from True Names about all the warlocks trying to 
crack each other's nyms to enslave each other. Sad?