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.
Ok then, if they're *not* antithetical, why do we need a balance? Why not just go ahead and maximize both?
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.
What exactly do you consider "security" and "freedom" to mean here? Whose security? Whose freedom? I can take responsibility for ensuring that any Internet communications I make are protected from inspection or interception by using technological solutions. I call that "security". If you're interested in "security", what are you doing to protect my freedom to use encryption and anonymous remailer technologies? ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * pain is inevitable m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * suffering is optional