From: Scott Schryvers <schryver@radiks.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:01:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Freedom and security
Message-ID: <199604300129.UAA19944@sr.radiks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:08 PM 4/28/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>No.  "Those who sacrifice security for freedom, will have neither" is
>>not consistent with Franklin's statement, nor is it true.  Security and
>>freedom are antithetical, and worse than that, security is always an
>>illusion.  But you can have your illusion, as long as you keep it out of
>>my life.  Censor yourself if you wish, but don't censor anything I might
>>want to look up.
>>

>The Internet may once have been one of those small close knit communities,
>small enough not to require law enforcement - although even then it had
>rules that had to be followed.  But that Internet is gone, and it will
>never return, because now its the biggest city in the world, and the
>history of the change from pastoral communities to urban life, to the
>development of nation states and power blocs is also the history of crime.
>And as the Internet grows, so will its security problems.
>
>My position is to seek a balance between the freedom of the individual and
>the security of the community.  My argument is that when the security of
>the community is threatened by the freedom of the individual, the community
>will always prioritise its safety.  

"When the security of the community is threatened by the freedom of the
individual?!"

>From what socio-political ideology do you run your group?

>Good government of course means
>maintaining individual freedoms *and* maintaining community security.  I
>actually disagree that they are antithetical.  On the contrary they are a
>balance that any society has to find.  Where individual freedom takes over
>you have the urban jungle where predators consume prey.  Where security
>takes over you have the totalitarian state.  Neither is necessary nor
>inevitable.

By the way government serves best when it serves least.

Remember that.

>We are simply concentrating on the problem from two different angles.  My
>concern is to maximise community safety while protecting individual
>freedom.  Your angle is to maximise individual freedom while protecting
>community safety.  There is IMHO very little difference between the two.

No there is a major difference, I feel society is served best when
each individual has the freedom to defend and protect themselves apposed
to what you want us to do in essence you want us to lay down those liberties 
to an outsied group who are supposed to protect us.  

The internet is not a city, it is a computer network that
spans the globe.  What you are asking for in analogy is not a cop walking
a city street but fucking U.N. tanks driving through neiborhoods enforcing
rights by way of brute force. 

>From what I have seen of what your group does you are as hypicritical as
law enforcement in your techniques and attacks on others.  Often unwarranted
and justified in the name of some supposed higher ideal.

PGP encrypted mail preferred.  
Scott J. Schryvers <schryver@radiks.net>
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQENAzFX9usAAAEH/2r2eovPAoYZbxzmfJ1DW7yjjdVnckXjUVKU/zZNAUV/IjzF
GDEq040wbAG1rFHDYoBOjjJTOGWMFuZ9apqoAvvI7Q4NAmVrNif0Rp8q/j4jib13
dlAA4Q0nvJZ5YNw4sf4r0iug76+9i0WpIZoP60DEB8BTuyCP55+nsbe7Ii3xLRyq
ThZ2fhNqK2hD/rFugXK29Ynyzuc6TuFfu78kVOsYUUbQpplXyaLjhGKN94pZ5jox
x7/wvqmBoH9E3rnaIPY9vOwy3kvMmCTlkjhlCzMXZHDn0e3UHWAax2mUTMttRzzi
+SUv45h6ua+eSwUkA8uojojn/JiPOKIPwPk3hq0ABRG0KFNjb3R0IEouIFNjaHJ5
dmVycyA8c2Nocnl2ZXJAcmFkaWtzLm5ldD4=
=58dK
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----