Re: "And who shall guard the guardians?"
On Cyperpunks recently, Tim May wrote:
The Latin maxim "And who shall guard the guardians?" has some relevance to the headlong rush into converting the U.S. into even more of a security state than it is now.
The English-Only bill just passed in the House bans the use of non-English languages by government officials. Does Tim's sudden avoidance of the Latin mean that _he_'s the Fed?? At 02:57 PM 7/31/96 -0700, Martin Minow <minow@apple.com> wrote:
I would suspect that a Baysian analysis would indicate that the risk of holding (and losing) a key is greater than the risk of not holding (and needing) a key.
Cui bono? Or, in this case, risk to _whom_? The damage from losing a key is done to the key's owner, who's a mere Subject, while the dangers of needing a key that one doesn't have are interference with the Custodians doing the jobs they want to do. Sounds like a no-brainer, from the Government's viewpoint. TRUST NO ONE!
The English-Only bill just passed in the House bans the use of non-English languages by government officials. Does Tim's sudden avoidance of the Latin mean that _he_'s the Fed??
What about Navajo? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
The English-Only bill just passed in the House bans the use of non-English languages by government officials. Does Tim's sudden avoidance of the Latin mean that _he_'s the Fed??
What about Navajo? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
participants (2)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Lesher