Dan, thanks see below ---- On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> 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. > Agree > > 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). > Yes > 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. > > ...Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt... > 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. > > Agreed again on the balancing act... I think however that a number of reasonable steps can be taken to take down cybercriminals without hurting a single innocent person. We can establish basic and follow principles to reduce web-based crime. I am convinced that governments-cybercrime hackers that collaborate in certain countries to their mutual benefits actually hurt many innocent stand-byers. Best, Alain > 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 > > > -- 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