Freedom and security
Mike McNally
m5 at vail.tivoli.com
Tue Apr 30 20:32:13 PDT 1996
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 at tivoli.com * m101 at io.com *
<URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * suffering is optional
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list