At 02:43 PM 9/14/01 -0800, you wrote:
>I am willing to forfeit liberty in order to be "safe."

>Amazing.  Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to
>purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>(see note 1)

Lots of people say things.  What does "deserve" mean?  It's a value judgment
that has no relation to the real world.  That kind of talk is shadow-boxing.
Saying so does not make it so.  Show me evidence the statement is true and
then we can discuss.

Just as "safety" and "security" are not absolutes and should always be in
quotes, so too should the same apply to the words "liberty" and "freedom."
Any vagueness objection you have against the former apply to the latter.

>If you go live in a prison cell, never to be let out, you probably would be
>as safe as a human can be.  But, how wants to live lik

I would not feel very safe in prison.  I don't want a boyfriend.

>Let's use a car analogy.  How can you be resonably sure that your brand new
>car will not ever be damaged (paint chips, rocks in the windshield, door
>dings, accidents, etc.)?  Put it in your garage and never take it out.

What does "sure" mean?  What is knowledge?  Do you have any knowledge?  Tell
me something that you think you know.  I can prove you know nothing or I can
prove you know everything depending on what is your definition of "proof."
Likewise, I can prove I am "secure" or "free" depending on what your
definitions are. We can break language down into a pile of rubble if we want
to.  The concepts you invoke in your arguments are no more and no less
stable than  those I invoke in mine.

In the end, all that remains is belief and judgment.  And what I believe is
that I am willing to accept restrictions on crypto if it helps fight
terrorism, and what I believe is that I am free and I don't want a
boyfriend.  If the NSA says fettered crypto helps national security, I tend
to believe them, or I am willing to give it a try.  If someone is able to
show me empirical evidence that it doesn't help, I am willing listen.

Statements like Franklin's, quoted above, are witty but vacuous.  Here is
another one.  "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy."
This is by Zimmerman, the creator of PGP.  It sounds good.  Is it true?
Don't know, but for some people, the rhythm of the statement carries a
punch, and that punch makes it seem true.  I think more should be required.




My point: The world is not safe and never will be.

How much freedom are you willing to exchange for more illusion of safety?
Freedom is so fragile I question anything that would limit it in any way.
Do terrorists communicate securely on written letters in envelopes through
the mail?  If they do, should we ban evelopes so it would be easier for the
authorities to read the bad guy's post cards along with my medical records?

Once you open the door, who decides how wide to open it and how do they
decide that?  I would rather keep the door shut.

Alan

Note 1: I have seen this "quote" re-worded so many times I am beginning to
doubt it's authenticity.  Does anyone know where the ORIGINAL version is?
In any case, I agree with the idea presented.


________________________________________________
See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post
to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.

PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss