Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"

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

On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> hallam@w3.org writes:
> > There is a considerable difference between running a government and
> > being an individual. It is not merely ethical for one government to
> > read another's mail, it is a duty.
> 
> I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should
> be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to
> steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad
> for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the
> government, too.

Er, I believe the above was clearly intended to mean "for one government
to read another government's mail." 

...
> I do not mean to pretend that there is an absolute ethics. I merely
> claim that I do not find in my mind an easy distinction between the
> acts of a government official under color of authority and the acts of
> any other individual.

How about:

It is the ethical duty of a responsible government to read other 
government's mail, absent any treaties or gentlemen's agreements to the 
contrary.

It is the ethical duty of a responsible government not to read its own 
citizens' mail without specific probable cause that a crime has occurred 
or is imminent.

It is the ethical duty of responsible citizens to read their own
government's mail, to ensure that their government is behaving ethically. 

The knotty bits concern how much of its own mail the government needs to
disclose, because you can't really disclose it to your own citizens
without effectively disclosing it to the whole world. And how much the 
government can lie, cheat, and steal in purely international affairs. I'd 
answer "a lot" to both.

-rich
 Fucking Statist