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


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



On Fri, October 14, 2011 2:15 pm, Alain Berranger wrote:
> Hi Dan, we both referred to a balance... I did not say at any cost... I
> spoke of a spectrum... and respecting diverse opinions along that
> spectrum.
> I respect your point of view. I think we need to find a way to minimize
> cybercrime... and make it harder for certain countries to enable the
> hosting
> of cybercriminals.
>
> Best, Alain
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Just to take this point on the merits:
>>
>> On Fri, October 14, 2011 12:43 pm, Alain Berranger wrote:
>> > Can we all agree that there is malfeasance on the Web and that it
>> should
>> > be brought down as often and as much as possible?
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> One of the enduring realities of any real-world law enforcement regime
>> is
>> that perfection is not an option.  Either you are going to impugn
>> innocents or you are going to let malfeasance slip through, or some
>> combination of both.  The question is one of balance (how many innocents
>> will you impugn in order to catch how many malefactors?), and usually
>> the
>> answer to that in a modern democratic system is called "due process"
>> (and
>> may involve ancillary principles like "innocent until proven guilty"
>> etc.).
>>
>> The statement above constitutes a maximalist policy at the extreme,
>> where
>> innocents will often get caught in the net, creating what might be
>> considered "unintended consequences" -- or even worse, it may provide
>> tools to those who hold power to abuse law enforcement privileges and
>> actively harass innocents, perhaps for political purposes.  The
>> innocents
>> that will be most affected by this are the ones without power (i.e.,
>> without money, or friends with money).
>>
>> We should be seeking to extend these principles to the Internet, not to
>> undermine them there.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
>> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
> Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>