### Re: Sharing Files like Video and Music Files

[ Follow-Ups ] [ Post Follow-up ] [ Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Savant on October 20, 192001 at 14:56:41: In Reply to: Re: Sharing Files like Video and Music Files posted by Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes on October 20, 192001 at 11:36:27:

: No, I don't think one could say that. A gun *is* physical force. It's
: something absolutely different. This is exactly where to draw the
: line, between information, which is a priori harmless, and means
: of physical destruction, such as guns.

If that is the case, then why is it that in any physical confrontation that an attacking force will cut off COMMUNICATION first? If communication is so 'harmless' then it should not be a threat, right?

Wrong.

Information is the #1 threat in any action. Without information you can't do ANYTHING, which is why it is so important.

If Osama Bin Laden had no means of communication, the disasters would not have occurred.

: : Privacy comes with a price. In this case Bin Laden likely had used
: : Freenet to instruct those involved with the disaster in New York. So the
: : question becomes, is YOUR privacy worth the lives of the 5000+ people who
: : were murdered?
:
: I personally think that if we pay a price as high as loosing
: our privacy to fight terrorism, then terrorism finally has reached
: it's goal.

I disagree. Privacy is not a right, it is a privilege. It is only guaranteed in certain conditions, and is NEVER absolute. There is always some circumstance somewhere that will over-ride a privacy concern.

When a person's right to privacy comes up against another person's right to LIVE, then the person's right to LIVE takes priority EVERY TIME.

Terrorism in of itself never achieves it's goals. However that doesn't mean people don't react to it. There must be a sacrifice for the greater good of society. In this case privacy will not be as great as it once was, but it doesn't mean the terrorists have reached their goals. In fact this is the OPPOSITE of what they want. The terrorists want people like you advocating for more privacy so they can carry out their evil acts in private.

: BTW, It's very hard to prohibit Freenet or destroy it forcibly. So
: whatever you say against it or try to do against it, you can't do
: anything about it, except if you succeed in (a) destroying the physical
: wires freenet traffic is carried on (the whole Internet backbone) or
: (b) getting all people who run a Freenet node to stop that.

I never suggested that Freenet could be 'destroyed', although I think it would behoove society to insert code so that law enforcement could trace transmissions that are linked to terrorists and other criminals.

In reality Freenet is nothing more than a glorified pirate network anyway. The vast majority of people who would use it are trading pirated programs and such. If they are not committing a crime, then why do they need to use it?

(Before you mention oppressed countries and free speech issues, know that those users are minuscule compared to the bulk of users who trade illegal goods.)

: Both I consider impossible, so our discussion is really futile.
: Your arguments are against privacy, but they won't stop Freenet
: from running, because it has especially been designed to stand
: any treat one could imagine.

What was that you said? "then terrorism finally has reached it's goal."

Freenet is the goal of EVERY terrorist. A system and a means of communication that cannot be traced or monitored, and giving them the ability to carry out large scale acts of terrorism without being found out ahead of time.

It's a dream come true for people like Osama Bin Laden. Why do you think they caught everyone off guard? ...because technology is now reaching the point where law enforcement is unable to trace certain communications. Like Freenet.

: : If not, how many people have to die before that 'privacy' is put behind
: : the needs of society? 10,000? 10,000,000?

: If the whole world dies, it is not enough IMO. If privacy
: is put behinds the need of society, we loose the right to
: call ourselfes 'The Free World.'

Freedom and privacy are two different things though. Walking down the street you are seen by cameras everywhere. While you do not have 'privacy' you do have freedom.

However the freedom to swing your arm ends when you strike your neighbour's nose. To that end freedom is not absolute. Your freedom cannot be had at the expense of someone's ELSE'S freedom to be free from harm.

That is the difference.

: Don't you think your argumentation is influenced quite much by
: anti-privacy groups who now try to abuse the very emotional
: feelings people have about the incident? I know that the incident
: was cruel, but we must try not to see anything too emotional.

Not at all. I'm not 'anti-privacy' at all. In fact I think far too many companies collect far too much information. I think that companies should have to get permission to keep this data.

However, we're talking about privacy of TERRORISTS and people breaking the law. Personally, I believe if a person is using something to break the law, they should have no guarantee of privacy.

If Freenet goes mainstream, you'll see a marked increase in crime, and more deaths as a result.

I still think the price is too high.

Regards,

Savant

Follow-up Messages:

- Re: Sharing Files like Video and Music Files Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes 22:00:53 10/20/2001 (2)
  - Re: Sharing Files like Video and Music Files Savant 01:08:21 10/21/2001 (1)
    - Re: Sharing Files like Video and Music Files Peter 'Rattacresh' Backes 13:13:01 10/21/2001 (0)

Post a Follow-up Message

    Name:

    E-Mail:

    Subject:
    Comments:

    : : No, I don't think one could say that.  A gun *is* physical force.  It's
    : : something absolutely different.  This is exactly where to draw the
    : : line, between information, which is a priori harmless, and means
    : : of physical destruction, such as guns.

    : If that is the case, then why is it that in any physical confrontation that an attacking force will cut off COMMUNICATION first?  If communication is so 'harmless' then it should not be a threat, right?

    : Wrong.

    : Information is the #1 threat in any action.  Without information you can't do ANYTHING, which is why it is so important.

    : If Osama Bin Laden had no means of communication, the disasters would not have occurred.

    : : : Privacy comes with a price.  In this case Bin Laden likely had used
    : : : Freenet to instruct those involved with the disaster in New York.  So the
    : : : question becomes, is YOUR privacy worth the lives of the 5000+ people who
    : : : were murdered?
    : :
    : : I personally think that if we pay a price as high as loosing
    : : our privacy to fight terrorism, then terrorism finally has reached
    : : it's goal.

    : I disagree.  Privacy is not a right, it is a privilege.  It is only guaranteed in certain conditions, and is NEVER absolute.  There is always some circumstance somewhere that will over-ride a privacy concern.

    : When a person's right to privacy comes up against another person's right to LIVE, then the person's right to LIVE takes priority EVERY TIME.

    : Terrorism in of itself never achieves it's goals.  However that doesn't mean people don't react to it.  There must be a sacrifice for the greater good of society.  In this case privacy will not be as great as it once was, but it doesn't mean the terrorists have reached their goals.  In fact this is the OPPOSITE of what they want.  The terrorists want people like you advocating for more privacy so they can carry out their evil acts in private.

    : : BTW, It's very hard to prohibit Freenet or destroy it forcibly.  So
    : : whatever you say against it or try to do against it, you can't do
    : : anything about it, except if you succeed in (a) destroying the physical
    : : wires freenet traffic is carried on (the whole Internet backbone) or
    : : (b) getting all people who run a Freenet node to stop that.

    : I never suggested that Freenet could be 'destroyed', although I think it would behoove society to insert code so that law enforcement could trace transmissions that are linked to terrorists and other criminals.

    : In reality Freenet is nothing more than a glorified pirate network  anyway.  The vast majority of people who would use it are trading pirated programs and such.  If they are not committing a crime, then why do they need to use it?

    : (Before you mention oppressed countries and free speech issues, know that those users are minuscule compared to the bulk of users who trade illegal goods.)

    : : Both I consider impossible, so our discussion is really futile.
    : : Your arguments are against privacy, but they won't stop Freenet
    : : from running, because it has especially been designed to stand
    : : any treat one could imagine.

    : What was that you said?  "then terrorism finally has reached it's goal."

    : Freenet is the goal of EVERY terrorist.  A system and a means of communication that cannot be traced or monitored, and giving them the ability to carry out large scale acts of terrorism without being found out ahead of time.

    : It's a dream come true for people like Osama Bin Laden.  Why do you think they caught everyone off guard?  ...because technology is now reaching the point where law enforcement is unable to trace certain communications.  Like Freenet.

    : : : If not, how many people have to die before that 'privacy' is put behind
    : : : the needs of society?  10,000? 10,000,000?

    : : If the whole world dies, it is not enough IMO.  If privacy
    : : is put behinds the need of society, we loose the right to
    : : call ourselfes 'The Free World.'

    : Freedom and privacy are two different things though.  Walking down the street you are seen by cameras everywhere.  While you do not have 'privacy' you do have freedom.

    : However the freedom to swing your arm ends when you strike your neighbour's nose.  To that end freedom is not absolute.  Your freedom cannot be had at the expense of someone's ELSE'S freedom to be free from harm.

    : That is the difference.

    : : Don't you think your argumentation is influenced quite much by
    : : anti-privacy groups who now try to abuse the very emotional
    : : feelings people have about the incident?  I know that the incident
    : : was cruel, but we must try not to see anything too emotional.

    : Not at all.  I'm not 'anti-privacy' at all.  In fact I think far too many companies collect far too much information.  I think that companies should have to get permission to keep this data.

    : However, we're talking about privacy of TERRORISTS and people breaking the law.  Personally, I believe if a person is using something to break the law, they should have no guarantee of privacy.

    : If Freenet goes mainstream, you'll see a marked increase in crime, and more deaths as a result.

    : I still think the price is too high.

    : Regards,

    : Savant

    Optional Link URL:

    Link Title:

    Optional Image URL:

[ Follow-Ups ] [ Post Follow-up ] [ Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]