Thanks, Dan.

I would even re-phrase your sentence saying "we want to reduce 
cybercrime *while also* protecting free speech " - having some 
experience suffering from both, I would rather prefer to say: "we want 
to protect free speech reduce *while also* reducing cybercrime."

Agreed about this sequence of priorities?

Norbert


On 10/15/2011 06:00 AM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> One may of course respect a diversity of views, but when a single policy
> requires implementation according to the principles of a single view,
> there needs to be some resolution of diversity to (if possible) a
> consensus position.
>
> I guess then it would help to define what "as much as possible" means --
> to me that sounded like "at any cost" (including the unfounded impugning
> of innocents, since that inevitably will happen if you want to address
> *all* malfeasance, however defined).
>
> If what you really meant was "as much as possible without stomping on the
> rights of innocents without power" then I would begin to agree with you in
> principle, though the devil is in the details because there is a trade-off
> required here.
>
> The fundamental question is: how do we want to arrange that trade-off?
> That is to say, we want to reduce cybercrime *while also* protecting free
> speech.  To express only one half of this trade-off is to miss the real
> issue before us, because we cannot have both in perfect degree.
>
> The fundamental difference of opinion here seems to be which goal has
> priority, security or expression?  Ideally we would want "balance" here,
> but until we can find that balance, how do we proceed in the near term?
> Personally, I side with Wendy.
>
> Best,
> Dan
-- 
A while ago, I started a new blog:

...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
http://www.thinking21.org/

continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.

Norbert Klein
[log in to unmask]
Phnom Penh / Cambodia