Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!purdue!spaf
From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality
Message-ID: <11609@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 6 Sep 90 17:57:04 GMT
References: <11503@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <82778@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <50@hyprion.ddmi.com>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 43

In article <50@hyprion.ddmi.com>, rabbit@hyprion.ddmi.com (Dr. Roger Rabbit) writes:
> Now now, lets not get insulting. I agree that Mr. Spafford seems to
> be willing to ignore people's rights in favor of security. The only
> thing that I have to add is the quote from Ben Franklin: 
>    
>     "Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither"

How did you derive that conclusion?  I'm *very* interested in
preserving people's rights.  However, there is no such thing as an
unlimited right.  Abuse or perceived danger of "rights" is a sure way
to get the great unwashed masses opposed to the rights and the related
benefits.  Consider that the growing death toll from gunshot wounds
has people willing to abridge (or more narrowly define) the right to
bear arms.  The growing concerns over drug use in the worksplace is
resulting in more and more people willing to give in to warrantless
and/or clearly un-Constitutional searches.  Growing fear over AIDS is
resulting in loss of privacy rights.

If something is not done to help curb the growing and blatant abuse of
computers by a small segment of the population, the majority are going
to be very willing to ignore the rights and wishes of those who use
computers and know them best.  If we, as a community, don't help stop
the breakins and vandalism, we'll get tarred with the same brush, so
to speak.  Witness what has already happened to the word "hackers."


> I for one would rather deal with the so-called "criminals" (and there
> aren't as many of them out there as the SS would lead us to beleive)
> than with an oppressive gov't under which I would have no civil rights.

1) You are in little danger of having no civil rights.
2) You should be able to have civil rights and also not have to deal
with criminals.  The two are not mutually exclusive.
3) There are probably more criminals than you think -- I'd be
interested on knowing what data you are using to draw your conclusion?
   a)  Ten criminals doing 10 million dollars of damage is not
       much (if any) worse than 1 million criminals doing a $100 damage each.
   b)  What numbers have the Secret Service "led us to believe"?
-- 
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu	uucp:	...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf