From: liberty@gate.net (Jim Ray)
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:39:54 +0800
To: m5@vail.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: Freedom and security
Message-ID: <199604302039.QAA26070@osceola.gate.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

angels@wavenet.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.

There may be some word-definition problems here. I believe Mr.
McNally refers to the words freedom and security as applied to
individuals, and CyberAngels refers to them as applied to the
whole of society. When all the flowery rhetoric is removed,
society is made up of individuals, and individuals almost by
definition disagree on the meanings and relative importance
in their own lives of freedom and security. For example, I
feel not-a-lot of freedom being Vince's munition exporter #17,
but Louis Freeh doubtless feels more secure with a statist law
like ITAR around. FBI Director Freeh and I are both part of
society, and I can refer to the two of us as "we," but "we"
clearly disagree on freedom and security. His side has more
guns, along with the media, and my side has more people who
tell the truth. He is free to open up all his private email
to government snoops if he wants to, but he may not open mine,
because I do not trust him. He also may not dictate the content
of my webpage, which includes my possibly-indecent babypictures.

>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 agree. Freedom is already diminishing at an alarming pace.
That is why cypherpunks spread crypto, and why Libertarians like
me rant. Freedom does not increase through more laws. _Parents_,
NOT governments, ISPs, cops, villages, and so on, are responsible
for raising children. Parents sometimes raise kids in ways that I
disagree with, but I am unwilling to advocate laws that prevent
it because such laws only breed more laws, which always lead to
less freedom.

>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 am unsure what this means. I want Jim Ray drawing my lines,
because I think he does a better job of it than Director Freeh,
even if his side has more/better guns than mine. I feel that his
side is in a different, much better armed, and much more trigger-
happy "camp" than mine.

>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).
JMR

Regards, Jim Ray <liberty@gate.net> 

"My cynical belief is that there is a lack of motivation in either
 party to fully and properly investigate [Mena] because the results
 will damage as many Republicans as Democrats." - former prosecutor
 Charles Black, in April 22, 1996's Wall Street Journal, p.A22

[NOTE TO MEDIA TYPES LURKING: Must the W$J and "High Times" magazine
 be the only journalists to cover the Mena, Arkansas story???]<sigh>
_______________________________________________________________________
PGP key Fingerprint  51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE  53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 
Public Key id. #  E9BD6D35   --   http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray
_______________________________________________________________________



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh.

iQCVAwUBMYZ5Rm1lp8bpvW01AQEHCwQAgPyle05vnwDqeWJvWSjFLBm4w6JzZe/F
dxYWsYTLmprySNO45Eu5UMfWiIyN0auW8vndS32Y67/HAgxvPFxfA1J95m//ty/l
qoSDTeeKjuHi4NIMo1gHIVvsWI0cSL/4gJSUJEeI9Ck5xXnWiP1okZAgyLj2HtYS
Wzag+PrHk0M=
=hMTU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----