Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: rmatt@psueea.UUCP (Rick Matt)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Computers and Open Meetings laws
Message-ID: <1972@hplabsc.HP.COM>
Date: Mon, 8-Jun-87 20:46:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1972
Posted: Mon Jun  8 20:46:40 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jun-87 06:06:17 EDT
References: <1864@hplabsc.HP.COM>
Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Portland State University
Lines: 21
Approved: taylor@hplabs

Bill Gunshannon replies to a posting fo Hugh Daniel with:

>> In contrast I will question any system that our government wishes to 
>> install that I as a Citizen cannot look into and explore.
>
>Somehow the logic of this statement evades me.  The last I heard the
>government had hundreds (maybe thousands) of computers (IRS FBI NSA CIA 
>DOD etc.).  Name one government agency that allows Citizens to look into
>and explore it's computer.

Are you merely pointing out the commonness of computers that citizens 
aren't allowed to look into?  Your logic escapes me.  I can't _know_ what 
Hugh Daniel meant, but I took it at face value.  Just because it is 
common for there to be computers that the average citizen can't look into 
doesn't mean that Hugh doesn't question such systems.  (Or, put a bit more 
straight-forwardly, Hugh can question the common practice of preventing 
citizens for gaining access to government computer systems.)  Your point 
that it is presently common for this to happen certainly puts Hughs comment 
in a differant light, but the statement is far from illogical.

						Rick Matt