[Politech] Replies to Jim Harper over Canada's privacy commissioner [priv]

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 07:23:55 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "[Politech] Another unintended consequence of health "privacy" laws [priv]"

    From: "Downes, Stephen" <Stephen.Downes@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
    To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan@private>
    Subject: RE: [Politech] Auditor finds shocking abuses by ex-Canadian priva
    	cy commissioner [priv]
    Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:03:53 -0400 
    You'll note, I hope, that this is the auditing system working the way it
    should, catching unjustified expenses and dubious expense accounts. The
    phrase 'no bureaucrat is safe' should say 'no dishonest bureaucrat is safe'
    - the vast majority of people who have been audited receive positive reports
    from the auditor general, mainly because they spent the taxpayers' money in
    a respectful and reasonable fashion. Of course, that won't get any media
    -- Stephen
    Stephen Downes ~ E-Learning Group ~ National Research Council Canada
              stephen@private -~- http://www.downes.ca
    For free daily news and information about e-learning and related
    technology, visit OLDaily at http://www.downes.ca/news
    From: "adam beecher" <lists@private>
    To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@private>, <jim.harper@private>
    Subject: RE: [Politech] Why not to have a privacy commissioner,from Jim Harper [priv]
    Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:47:40 +0100
    Hi Jim, Declan,
    > Credit where credit is due: At least Canada will punish what
    > wrongdoing is found.
    As they should. If this isn't a whitewash, obviously.
    > Europe probably gives its privacy bureaucrats <i>carte
    > blanche</i> to free-spend tax dollars.
    Why the anti-European rhetoric? Could you not just have stopped after the
    first sentence, instead of pigeonholing an entire continent?
    We use euros over here by the way, not dollars. Is that anti-american? :)
    Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:40:35 +0100
    From: David Cantrell <david@private>
    Organization: Siberian Heavy Industries and Fur Concern
    To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
    Subject: Re: [Politech] Why not to have a privacy commissioner,	from Jim Harper
    References: <>
    >I don't know if you've seen this, but Canada's Privacy Commissioner
    >fiasco continues.
    Uh-huh.  So because one particular example of a privacy commissioner
    may have been a criminal scumbag, there should be no privacy
    commissioners at all.  Mr. Harper really is being spectacularly stupid
    Of course, by Harper's silly argument, there should be no president of
    the US because there has been a criminal in the white house.  And
    there should be no libertarians because some libertarians are
    criminals.  And so on.
    Lord Protector David Cantrell  |  http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
                 If a job's worth doing, it's worth dieing for
    Politech mailing list
    Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 03 2003 - 06:59:43 PDT