Re: Respect for privacy != Re: exposure=deterence?

[Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>]

On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 02:59 AM 1/14/96 -0800, Rich Graves wrote:
> >On Sat, 13 Jan 1996, jim bell wrote:
> >
> >> 1.  Individual private citizens acting on their own deserve privacy and
> >> anonymity.
> >> 2.  Government employees receiving paychecks based on tax dollars stolen
> >> from members of the public do not.
> >
> >Disregarding the high-falutin' diction, why not?
> >
> >Certainly, expose everything they do at work, but I don't see that 
> >tracking someone down personally serves any purpose.
> 
> Tell that to Simon Weisenthal, who (until his recentconversion to statism)
> was under the impression that tracking down people who did bad things for
> the government was not only acceptable, but in fact laudatory.

And then, pausing for breath only once, he wrote:
 
> >> 3.  Individuals not harming others deserve privacy and anonymity.
> >> 4.  Government employees threatening citizens with large fines and jail
> >> time, for doing what we consider right and good, do not.
> >
> >I strongly disagree, and the fact that it's a government is irrelevant. 
> 
> Since government is funded by stolen dollars, it ISN'T irrelevant.
> 
> >Everybody deserves privacy: criminals,
> 
> I agree, to the extent that an unconvicted person who happens to be a
> criminal is also an ordinary citizen.
> 
> > government employees,
> 
> I _Disagree_, especially after they've committed crimes for the government.

I find it difficult to equate the actions of a volunteer grand juror
(which is what we were originally discussing before your knee started
jerking so wildly) or IRS auditor with those of Mengele. I am aware that
some so-called libertarian leaders accuse the IRS of crimes against
humanity, but I think they're demagogic idiots. See the non-libertarian
FAQ, at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

SW does not go after any old Nazi, just those convicted in absentia for 
enumerated crimes against humanity.

> > and people
> >you like as well. Of course, you have the right to investigate any person,
> >in keeping with the law.
> 
> If "the law" is used to protect government-employed criminals, then the law
> is wrong and we should disregard that portion of it.

Of course I agree. Actually, at the Bay Area cpunks meeting the question
whether any law that can't logically be enforced is valid was brought up. 
Examples include the illegality of using credit information more than
eight (?) years old when evaluating a loan, proposed limitations on Web
spiders and Usenet archives, the Swedish laws that are supposed to outlaw
maintaining computerized records with just about any kind of information
about people without a license, and censorship in general.

Where we differ is that I think it's bad taste and bad ethics to invade
anyone's privacy. It's a question of "justifiable force" for me. I believe
just about everyone with any technical understanding who reads this list
has similar ethics. 

I don't post private email. I don't investigate politicians' home phone
numbers and past relationships. It's just not relevant, unless there's 
specific probable cause.

The threat of investigation is valid, and has a positive deterrent effect.
But no one should have to live under the assumption that she has no
privacy at all. 

-rich
 owner-win95netbugs@lists.stanford.edu
 ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/mailing-lists/win95netbugs/
 gopher://quixote.stanford.edu/1m/win95netbugs
 http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/faq.html