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

[Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>]

On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Scott Brickner wrote:

> s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca writes:
> >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?
> 
> I agree with Charlie.  These government employees claim to be working
> for the american taxpayers, of which group I am a member.  Government
> agents must, therefore, expect to be accountable to the citizens, while
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^

That all depends, of course, by what you mean by "accountable."
And government employees are also taxpayers ...

And what of those using government-funded 
scholarships/computers/univerisities/roads & bridges/etc.

Perhaps all should be "accountable."  Wouldn't want to waste bridge use!

> accountability in the other direction is virtually the definition of
> tyranny.
> 

EBD