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

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

From: "Downes, Stephen" <Stephen.Downes () nrc-cnrc gc ca>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com>
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
play.

-- Stephen

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Stephen Downes ~ E-Learning Group ~ National Research Council Canada
          stephen () downes ca -~- 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 () beecher net>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>, <jim.harper () privacilla org>
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? :)

adam

---

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:40:35 +0100
From: David Cantrell <david () cantrell org uk>
Organization: Siberian Heavy Industries and Fur Concern
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Why not to have a privacy commissioner, from Jim Harper
 [priv]
References: <6.0.0.22.2.20031002123558.01faa9c0 () mail well com>

> 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
here.

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/)