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

Header Data

From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
To: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
Message Hash: fcec1c02833edd538426b15d3fb1f3a4c7cefe4cc0654ff74710d5bfb1a27270
Message ID: <199601152213.RAA19247@universe.digex.net>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9601132350.A15455-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-16 04:55:21 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:55:21 +0800

Raw message

From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:55:21 +0800
To: s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca
Subject: Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9601132350.A15455-0100000@aix2.uottawa.ca>
Message-ID: <199601152213.RAA19247@universe.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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