From: Mike McNally <m5@vail.tivoli.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:32:13 +0800
To: "CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher" <angels@wavenet.com>
Subject: Re: Freedom and security
In-Reply-To: <v01510100a9e5fbebce39@[198.147.118.199]>
Message-ID: <3186400F.43CA@vail.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.

Ok then, if they're *not* antithetical, why do we need a balance?  Why
not just go ahead and maximize both?

> 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.

What exactly do you consider "security" and "freedom" to mean here?  Whose
security?  Whose freedom?

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?


______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