At 9:53 AM +0700 10/15/11, nhklein wrote:
>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