In message <199711201644.AA280104283@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU> wrote:
>>In whom does ``security'' (you are still being entirely vague about what you
>>really mean here) engender ``fear'', other than bad people?
>
>
>Ron, I was with you up to here. But it seems to me that there are
>an awful lot of _good_ people on the net campaigning against _bad_
>security. (I.e. government regulations requiring key escrow, attempts
>to outlaw public-key, etc.) You were making a perfectly fine argument
>before you started down this road. Your statement above sounds
>strikingly similar to the old "If you weren't doing anything wrong then
>you shouldn't have anything to hide" argument.
In general, I _do_ feel that way... at least when it comes to ``private''
security.
If I happen to pass by an industrial building, and I see that it is
surrounded with barbed-wire and huge floodlights and cameras, and yes,
even dogs, do I get bent outta shape? No way. That's private property
and the owners have a right to maintain tight security control over it
if they like.
I consider mailing lists the same way. They are private property. Each
one has an owner who has some (and perhaps a lot) of responsibility for
how the list is run. The owner has the right to have whatever ``security''
and as much security as he/she likes.
>Might want to reconsider.
Not really. We are just having a difference of terminology here. What
I call `security'' is stuff like having passwords on your server accounts.
I do not call government attempts to enforce key escrow and/or weak en-
cription ``security''. I have another name for that stuff... ``stupidity''.
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/
References:
|
|
