1996-01-16 - Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?

Header Data

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Message Hash: dd20557f21a4c1187751e0902647a2c8294b7ad9627a48e9918be0c973be0142
Message ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960115213302.29666h-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <199601152213.RAA19247@universe.digex.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-16 06:03:26 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:03:26 +0800

Raw message

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 14:03:26 +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.ULT.3.91.960115213302.29666h-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
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
> accountability in the other direction is virtually the definition of
> tyranny.


But government employees should only be held accountable for their actions
as government employees. If the situation warrants, go ahead and tap their
offices, break into their work computers, etc. But don't fuck with their 
personal lives.

Lots of people on this list have the power to carry out their own tyranny
over both individuals and groups. All it takes in today's fragile online
world is a little specialized knowledge. I don't think it's ethical to use
this power without serious thought. 

The line between government and non-government is increasingly blurry
anyway. Everybody gets something from the government, be it roads or an
education. Why should you be more suspicious of the guy getting paid
$10/hour to deliver your mail by the government than the private
businessman getting millions of dollars in government subsidies? 

I think we're fundamentally asking the wrong question. I only see relative
power. I'd estimate that Bill Gates is more powerful than Fidel Castro in
many respects. He's certainly a lot more powerful than your average postal

 P.S. For the Good of the Order, I'm temporarily ignoring jimbell