-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) wrote:
Mike McNally wrote
If.... (freedom and security) ....weren't antithetical, there'd be no need for a balance.
If they were antithetical then as freedom increased security would decrease, and as security increased freedom would decrease.
There may be some word-definition problems here. I believe Mr. McNally refers to the words freedom and security as applied to individuals, and CyberAngels refers to them as applied to the whole of society. When all the flowery rhetoric is removed, society is made up of individuals, and individuals almost by definition disagree on the meanings and relative importance in their own lives of freedom and security. For example, I feel not-a-lot of freedom being Vince's munition exporter #17, but Louis Freeh doubtless feels more secure with a statist law like ITAR around. FBI Director Freeh and I are both part of society, and I can refer to the two of us as "we," but "we" clearly disagree on freedom and security. His side has more guns, along with the media, and my side has more people who tell the truth. He is free to open up all his private email to government snoops if he wants to, but he may not open mine, because I do not trust him. He also may not dictate the content of my webpage, which includes my possibly-indecent babypictures.
It is not IMHO inevitable that if we increase security we will jeopardize freedom. My concern is that if we ignore security we will have no freedom left to protect.
I agree. Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace. That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws. _Parents_, NOT governments, ISPs, cops, villages, and so on, are responsible for raising children. Parents sometimes raise kids in ways that I disagree with, but I am unwilling to advocate laws that prevent it because such laws only breed more laws, which always lead to less freedom.
I don't believe the Internet community is split into two camps on this issue - there appear to me to be many places where people draw their lines at different points.
I am unsure what this means. I want Jim Ray drawing my lines, because I think he does a better job of it than Director Freeh, even if his side has more/better guns than mine. I feel that his side is in a different, much better armed, and much more trigger- happy "camp" than mine.
I don't believe that security is the enemy of freedom. I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all.
Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will bloom (along with freedom). JMR Regards, Jim Ray <liberty@gate.net> "My cynical belief is that there is a lack of motivation in either party to fully and properly investigate [Mena] because the results will damage as many Republicans as Democrats." - former prosecutor Charles Black, in April 22, 1996's Wall Street Journal, p.A22 [NOTE TO MEDIA TYPES LURKING: Must the W$J and "High Times" magazine be the only journalists to cover the Mena, Arkansas story???]<sigh> _______________________________________________________________________ PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Public Key id. # E9BD6D35 -- http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray _______________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh. iQCVAwUBMYZ5Rm1lp8bpvW01AQEHCwQAgPyle05vnwDqeWJvWSjFLBm4w6JzZe/F dxYWsYTLmprySNO45Eu5UMfWiIyN0auW8vndS32Y67/HAgxvPFxfA1J95m//ty/l qoSDTeeKjuHi4NIMo1gHIVvsWI0cSL/4gJSUJEeI9Ck5xXnWiP1okZAgyLj2HtYS Wzag+PrHk0M= =hMTU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----