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