Re: Freedom and security

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.

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 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 don't believe that security is the enemy of
freedom.  I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all.


*********************************************************
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:
> If they were antithetical then as freedom increased security would
> decrease, and as security increased freedom would decrease.
> 
> 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 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 don't believe that security is the enemy of
> freedom.  I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all.

You will pardon my asking this, but, security from what? Who are the
evil Network Terrorists throwing Bit Bombs or whatever? The only
security you need on the internet is keeping your site from being
broken in to, which is mostly a matter of setting it up
properly. What, exactly, is the "Security" that you are offering us?

Perry

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher writes:
> > If they were antithetical then as freedom increased security would
> > freedom.  My concern is that if we ignore security we will have no freedom
> > left to protect.
> > at different points.  I don't believe that security is the enemy of
> > freedom.  I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all.
> You will pardon my asking this, but, security from what? Who are the
> evil Network Terrorists throwing Bit Bombs or whatever? The only
> security you need on the internet is keeping your site from being
> broken in to, which is mostly a matter of setting it up
> properly. What, exactly, is the "Security" that you are offering us?

	Let me grab my other .sig here:

Postmodernism is the refusal to think--Ron Carrier            petro@suba.com 
Deconstruction is the refusal to believe that anyone else can either
Freedom of choice is what you have, freedom from choice is what you want.
	-- DEVO

	The last line is the relevant portion here. Just as there is 
freedom to, there is freedom _from_. I think that the same thing could be 
said for Security. On one hand you have the security to leave your house, 
safe in the knowlege that the majority of your stuff will be there when 
you return, and the security to walk the streets without the fear of 
getting attacked. On the other hand some would have the security of 
knowing that _no one_ is downloading dirty pictures, the security that 
the "wrong" person is not getting their hands on dangerous information 
etc. 
	With freedom, as we all learned in philosophy 101 (wether in 
college or just life) there is freedom TO--such as freedom to move to 
another country, the freedom to exchange ideas without constraint, in 
other words the freedom to do things--and the freedom FROM--from hunger, 
from fear, freedom from failure, freedom from being challenged, freedom 
from choice.

	People like the CyberAngels, are definately (IMO) on the side of 
the freedom FROM, rather than freedom TO, and their security is the the 
enoforced security of a prison, or a police state. 

	True Security, like freedom cannot be enforced or given from 
without, it must come from within. With freedom this is self-explanatory, 
no one can set you free, you have to do it.
	
	Security is the same way. One must be secure in ones beliefs, or 
one will be constantly troubled by "threats" to those beliefs. Witness 
the "Christian Right" in this country. Physcial security works the same 
way. If one takes care of ones community, working with ones neighbors 
etc., and applying social pressure to those who potentially threaten your 
physcial security you will live in a much healthier, and less dangerous 
enviroment (yeah, this is a little simplestic but you get the idea).


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.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.

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