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

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 12:02 AM 1/14/96 -0500, s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca wrote:
>My apologies for responding to a political post.
>
>On Sat, 13 Jan 1996, Charlie Merritt wrote:
>
>> I feel that public exposure
>> is enough to put fear into these anonymous government employees.
>> You will note that when they get the mad_bomber
>> some FBI guy jumps right up and takes credit, live, on TV.
>> But when the Air Force orders a $300 toilet seat NO ONE is credited.
>
>It's interesting how we advocate anonymity for ourselves but not for our
>opponents. Feeling righteous?

Maybe I don't understand your point, but... 

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.
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.

Get the picture?