1996-05-02 - Re: Freedom and security

Header Data

From: Clay.Olbon@dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II)
To: angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher)
Message Hash: 70b27a43691ff3250d7c30fa127d0519f54562aba2a1265f762523e3f14ed996
Message ID: <v01540b02adad17a7f5ec@[193.239.225.200]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-02 00:11:19 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 08:11:19 +0800

Raw message

From: Clay.Olbon@dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II)
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 08:11:19 +0800
To: angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher)
Subject: Re: Freedom and security
Message-ID: <v01540b02adad17a7f5ec@[193.239.225.200]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 7:38 PM 4/30/96, angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin
Gabriel Hatche wrote:
>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.

This is a totally facetious point.  I am fully capable of protecting myself
and my family from ANY threat posed by a single individual over the
internet (and from most threats posed in person as well).  There is no
"personal safety" issue.  This is fantasy.  When someone dies from an email
message, come back and talk to me about security.  Until then, the biggest
threat to my security on the internet comes from groups such as yours and
from the government.  In attempting to limit access to anonymous remailers
and cryptography, you are attempting to limit my ability to protect myself,
while substituting dubious governmental protection.  I say dubious, because
in the real world, there will always be those who break the law (if
cryptography is outlawed...).

You do have one point I agree with:
>Freedom of speech cannot function without law.

This is absolutely correct.  There must be a law to protect the freedom of
speech, and we have that law, it is called the 1st amendment to the
Constitution.  I saw a .sig the other day that said "What part of 'Congress
shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech' do you not
understand" (unfortunately I don't remeber whose .sig it was).  The self
anointed internet censors often try to muck up the basic issue of free
speech with the "evil" pornographers and bombmakers theme in an attempt at
convincing the public to give up freedom for illusory security.  You fall
in that net.censor category, in that you are attempting to restrict
freedom.  Although you may actually believe in what you are doing, you are
wrong.  Fortunately, I still have the right to disagree strongly.

        Clay


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Olbon II            | Clay.Olbon@dynetics.com
Systems Engineer         | ph: (810) 589-9930 fax 9934
Dynetics, Inc., Ste 302  | http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html
550 Stephenson Hwy       | PGP262 public key: on web page
Troy, MI 48083-1109      | pgp print: B97397AD50233C77523FD058BD1BB7C0
                     TANSTAAFL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------







Thread