Re: Freedom and security

[stevenw@best.com (Steven Weller)]

>Jim Ray wrote

I haven't bothered reading this particular thread up until now, but in my
opinion, based on this drivel, you're getting dangerously close to being
certified officially by the Cabal as an ignorant kook.

>Nor does freedom increase through less laws or no laws.

Of course it does. However, to maintain community resposibility must also
increase.

>Freedom increases
>as respect and care for one another increases.

Hogwash. That's community again. As respect and care for my neighbor's
peace and quiet I lose the freedom to blow leaves on a Sunday morning. This
is independent of what the law says.

>Meanwhile, since we do not
>live in utopia, all societies at a certain level of economic development
>and of a certain size of population require law and law enforcement to
>protect citizens from predators.

Hogwash again. Law and law enforcement only exists due to the failing of
such societies. Prisons and executions are the ultimate failure of a
society. Their existence (like hierarchical structure) is not a given. But
if it is all you know, then of course it's what you assume.

And don't forget that it is fundamental that law and law enforcement also
protects predators from citizens. Your analysis is rather one-sided.

>The Internet is beyond the stage of small communities exercising informal
>social controls (peer pressure).

How so?

>It's now a major industrial city and will

It's industry being?

>develop law, law enforcement and government, whether anyone likes it or
>not, not least because the Community will always respond to crime by trying
>to protect itself.

True, but there are individuals before community.

>  And the crime is already here.  The idea that the
>Internet is not controlled is IMHO one of the biggest myths around.  It's
>like a large group of people are still living in some far-off utopian rural
>paradise.

Wait a minute. A large number of people living in a utopian paradise?
Surely this is ideal. If there were the crime and activity you describe,
then it would not be utopian and would not be paradise. But maybe this is
paradise, but only to a criminal.

And interesting that you use the world "still". You obviously equate
"unorganized" with "backward". You even say "rural". You a city boy by any
chance?

>Does anyone really doubt the extent of State control and power
>across the Net?

Excuse me, can someone remind me why we're all here please?

> My point is that this is inevitable.  The Internet is a
>mirror of the rest of the world, not a new form of society, and I fail to
>understand why anyone should be surprised that that is the case.

You said it. You fail to understand. The reasons are obvious. Your eyes are
closed, your mind is shut, and you can hardly be heard over the traffic.

>I disagree with this statement. I do not believe that laws breed more laws
>nor that laws lead to less freedom.  I believe bad laws compromise freedom
>(eg CDA) while good laws protect freedom.

Freedom for whom? Freedom, like technology, is neutral. Laws are always of
the form "You shall" or "You shall not". Laws against mugging (to protect
the citizens) do not prevent muggings. They restrict the freedoms of
muggers and eventually incarcarate them. The existence of muggers causes
people to restrict their own freedom, by not jogging at night etc. Mugging
is a social and a community failure. A "good" law against the activity
reduces overall freedom while simultaneously failing to address the
problem. In short, a simple, ineffective, but visible fix. A perfect
business for politicians to be in.

>>>I don't believe that security is the enemy of
>>>freedom.  I believe that freedom needs security in order to exist at all.
>>
>>Good. Join us in spreading cryptography around, and security will
>>bloom (along with freedom).
>
>Cryptography enhances and protects privacy, which does not inevitably lead
>to greater security.  Security for the sender, yes, in that no one else can
>read the message, but security for the Community?

Sure. It means that the community can continue life as normal without
realising that the Mayor is gay. She does a fabulous job, everyone gains,
the community is very secure. Or shall we throw some FUD into the equation,
tell everyone, and have the uproar wreck the community?

> Doesnt that depend what
>the message said?  The technology itself is neutral.

Facts are neutral too. It does not depend on the message.

>Child pornographers
>encrypt their hard drives so that law enforcement cannot gather crime
>evidence - that is certainly a state of greater security for the
>pornographer, but it does not improve our Community, and as child
>pornography increases, the law is by definition broken more and more, and
>so the Community becomes less free than before.  And that's not the tyranny
>of government but the tryanny of criminals.

You really have laws on the brain, don't you? Lets see. Breaking laws
reduces freedom? This is where you have the wrong end of the stick. Making,
not breaking laws reduces freedom. If our mayor friend above looks at 1
naked minor a week, how does this reduce the freedom of her community? What
about 100? Much less free obviously.

>I do in fact support cryptography for personal security, not least because

Does that personal security extend to encrypting your hard drive? What
makes you different from Ms. Mayor?

>*********************************************************
>Colin Gabriel Hatcher - CyberAngels Director

>"Two people may disagree, but
>that does not mean that one of them is evil"

But ignorance plays a big role :-)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Weller                      |  Weller's three steps to Greatness:
                                   |     1. See what others cannot
                                   |     2. Think what others cannot
stevenw@best.com                   |     3. Express what others cannot