TR> TC> I begin to think that your scope is a bit too narrow...  Let me try
  > TC> to widen  it some.  Think of construction, mining, military,
  > TC> police, medical (yes, medical), transportation, etc. Think if we had
  > TC> no knowledge of explosives at all. Shall we take it to the extreme?
TR>Knowledge of explosives in these areas is already available with no 
problems
  >I have no problem with "a need to know basis". What I would have a problem
  >with is information being made available to the general public "without a
  >need to know." This is what we were really talking about.
Tom, what you are advocating is extremely close to what we all fear... a
police state.  Who is to decide who needs to know what?  The government!
When you put that kind of POWER into the hands of someone, it WILL
corrupt them.  You will find that the "need" gets narrower and narrower
because as knowledge gets more scarce, the ones who _know_ get more
powerful and they will find reasons to limit more and more knowledge.
Did you ever hear the phrase, "I'm from the government and I'm here to
help you"?  It's usually said tongue in cheek and for a very good
reason.
The bottom line is that we should censure _behaviour_ not censor
information.
---
 * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Politicians & diapers...Change often...Same reason
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
1:135/5.0)
---------------