Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?

[Anonymous]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 15 Jan 96, Rich Graves wrote:

> 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.

Oh, my! A little sensitive, are we? Aren't you even a *little*
struck by the fact that fucking with people's personal lives 
is *precisely* what errant government officials *do*???

> 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. 

Some might opine that the reason we have so many abuses is that
so *few* people use the power they hold in their hands to set 
things right. Even the well-intentioned seem to expect someone 
*else* to do their maintenance of the republic for them.

> The line between government and non-government is increasingly 
> blurry anyway. 

That's part of The Game, Rich.  It makes it all that much easier 
for people to dismiss attempts at delineation by saying things 
like, oh, "The line between government and non-government is 
increasingly blurry anyway."

> Everybody gets something from the government, be it roads or an 
> education. 

Oh. Okay, then. That makes it OK for them to indict you to keep 
their statistics up. Works for me!

> 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'm not. Maybe *you* should be more suspicious of the guy getting
paid $100K of direct government money to manage a national 
campaign of low-key terror than you should of the private 
businessman unable to pay himself because he *must* pay his 
employees and the government doesn't leave him enough for his 
own paycheck. This last is a *lot* more common 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 clerk. 

"Looking for pow'r... in all the wrong places, (la-tee-dah)..."
Admit it, Rich, you only see harmful power where you want to see 
it, and that isn't in government -- it is in private hands, 
particularly *corporate* hands. Geez, but you'd think that 
left-handed university cookie cutter would have gotten dulled and 
broken by now, and that they'd have fashioned a new one.

I'd estimate that the Postmaster General is more powerful than 
Fidel Castro in many respects. He's certainly a lot more powerful 
than your average private businessman.

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

That's quite all right. We can be sure he won't ignore *you*.


We Jurgar Din
(that will have to suffice: I do not yet live in a free country)

+"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the+
+vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no +
+election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now  +
+too late to retire from the contest." -Patrick Henry 1775 +


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMP9aREjw99YhtpnhAQG1ggIAhKmRWWIAIxCrmBemK79MDnnvko2Y+ooj
i2GoxrHhDC9cr98O45iEdo+spcVETbMryvVgf3i4MCRr7t2iRwoRxQ==
=nMvR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----