From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:38:42 -0800 (PST)
To: blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Subject: Re: permanent invasion of privacy
In-Reply-To: <01BBEC6B.95899C20@king1-23.cnw.com>
Message-ID: <32B7AD14.59F@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


blanc wrote:
> From:   Dale Thorn
> It's noteworthy that not a single person on this list has looked at this
> from the children's point of view, considering that there are *many* of
> them who could use the extra help (albeit bad for parents).

> There have been discussions about this; just not lately.   The intent of
> many on this list is to get away from a dependence on the generosity of
> overruling governments.  If a child can be helped ("empowered") by the uses
> of encryption, then it is relevant to list discussion.

Not lately?  And why is that?  How is an abused child going to be helped
by encryption?

> Empathy with children is not borne of government, but of a normal state of
> mind.   The ability to help abused individuals, whether young or old, is
> not a capacity exclusive to government.

That's just rhetoric.  What normal state of mind?  I understand the
argument against "big government", but *coincidentally*, as government
has gotten bigger over the last 50 years or so, children's lives have
gotten much better.  It was common to have neighbors in a city 40 years
ago (I remember) who beat their kids so bad you could hear them several
houses away.  You don't hear that today.  Coincidence?

> If you go out to alt.philosophy.objectivism they'll be glad to discuss this
> with you in detail.

In other words, if it doesn't offer something for me, the selfish adult,
I don't wanna hear it.  You can't have just one side of the discussion,
because there are too many people like me around to remind you that there
is the other side too.