Re: Freedom and security
Mike McNally wrote
What exactly do you consider "security" and "freedom" to mean here? Whose security? Whose freedom?
Every society has a social contract whereby the freedom of the individual is defined within the context of the society. Freedom means your freedom to be who you want to be, think how you want to think, say what you want to say, hold whatever beliefs you wish, balanced against the Community's need for stability. You may demand the freedom to kill those who disagree with you but no community will grant you that freedom. But no one living in a community where murder is outlawed can serious claim that their freedom has been taken away by that particular law. You cannot be free to speak your mind unless there are laws preventing others who disagree with you from killing you. If it were permitted to kill those who disagreed with you, then no one would be free to speak their mind at all, for fear of the consequences. Hence my point about freedom and security - by which I mean personal security. Freedom of speech cannot function without law.
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?
I am not currently aware that either your right to encrypt nor your right to use anon remailers is under threat, so why should I do anything? But while encryption and anon remailing protect *you* from certain threats to your freedom, they are also being used for example to make the international trade in child pornography more effective and less easy to prosecute. The technology itself is neutral and can be used or abused. That is why the focus should be on individual actions rather on the technology. My concern is not so much with network sabotage or infiltration (there are plenty enough organizations addressing that problem) but with personal safety within the Internet community - that means you, not your hard drive. ********************************************************* Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director angels@wavenet.com "Two people may disagree, but that does not mean that one of them is evil" *********************************************************
CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher writes:
Mike McNally wrote
What exactly do you consider "security" and "freedom" to mean here? Whose security? Whose freedom?
Every society has a social contract
Could you show me a copy? Everyone keeps telling me about this contract, but I can't for the life of me remember signing it.
You may demand the freedom to kill those who disagree with you but no community will grant you that freedom.
I see you've never heard of the Argentine armed forces.
I am not currently aware that either your right to encrypt nor your right to use anon remailers is under threat, so why should I do anything? But while encryption and anon remailing protect *you* from certain threats to your freedom, they are also being used for example to make the international trade in child pornography more effective and less easy to prosecute.
You start by talking about the social contract and how no one agrees that you should be able to kill people, and then you move straight on to child pornography. I find that interesting. Perry
CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher wrote:
Every society has a social contract...
Somehow, that little paragraph reminded me of the "Soliton bomb" speech in "Plan 9 From Outer Space." I'm outta this one gang. These angel dudes are too weird for me. ______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
participants (3)
-
angels@wavenet.com -
Mike McNally -
Perry E. Metzger