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 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

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