How much cyber security is really there?
in [Cryptography]
|
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 1 Apr 2010 08:51 WTShaw wrote: > Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >> Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering >> the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose >> the strong need of government regulations stems at least in >> essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of >> obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal >> people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries) >> only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the >> governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here >> in my humble view. > In some areas, government is crooked, breaks all sorts of state and > federal laws, even does the most dire things for corrupt reasons. > Retired Texas Ranger Clete Buckaloo is on the case of crooked cops. > Do not assume that any officials are straight with the people when > means to remove obvious abusers is trashed. Texas Governor Perry is a > sociopath that inspires others to office for mercenary > purposes...Shrub Bush also fit the mold. Texas is a mess!! What I wrote concerns whether the "principle" of having government to excercise the job of protecting people (in cases the acquirement of corresponding knowledge by the people themselves is "practically" difficult or even impossible) is good or not. That everything that is theoretically good may on the other hand turns out to be bad or catastrophic practically, when done by hands of incompetent or even malicious persons, is certainly a trivial and sad fact of life. Examples abound, in democracy, religions, etc. etc. M. K. Shen
From: unruh on 1 Apr 2010 12:03 On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen(a)t-online.de> wrote: > bmearns wrote: >> Richard Outerbridge wrote: > >>> So why do we continue to sell computers to idiots if they are becoming >>> as dangerous as unlicensed steam boilers, automobiles and rifles have >>> proven to be in the hands of idiots, without any of the idiot-proofing? >> >> See, I assumed you were being sarcastic about operator licenses for >> computers. Personally, I'm not a fan of too much government regulation >> to protect people from themselves, and I think that's a major >> difference: guns and cars used irresponsibly can hurt other people. >> Using a computer without knowing what you're doing will likely only >> harm yourself. Yes, there is a certain non-zero chance that you could >> hurt someone else because you didn't know what you were doing on the >> computer, but the same can be said for pretty much anything. > > Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering > the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose > the strong need of government regulations stems at least in > essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of > obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal > people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries) > only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the > governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here > in my humble view. Protection of their citizens is a first duty of government. That is why they have armies, laws, courts, police. Exactly how far that duty extends is one of the debates that has always raged. Noone has the knowledge needed in order to protect themselves from all possible sources of harm. Thus the duty on those who do have the knowledge in some area to protect those that do not in that area. This has nothing to do with parents and kids except that parents have more knowledge than the kids do of the dangers. > > M. K. Shen >
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 1 Apr 2010 12:40 unruh wrote: > Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >> Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering >> the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose >> the strong need of government regulations stems at least in >> essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of >> obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal >> people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries) >> only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the >> governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here >> in my humble view. > > Protection of their citizens is a first duty of government. That is why > they have armies, laws, courts, police. Exactly how far that duty > extends is one of the debates that has always raged. > Noone has the knowledge needed in order to protect themselves from all > possible sources of harm. Thus the duty on those who do have the > knowledge in some area to protect those that do not in that area. > This has nothing to do with parents and kids except that parents have > more knowledge than the kids do of the dangers. In my personal view, those who have more knowledge also have the (moral) responsibility to correspondingly render adequate protection tp those lacking knowledge. This is clearly the case with parents and children. I think that this is also the case e.g. with pedestrians when one sees that some blind or almost blind person walks into a dangerous zone. M. K. Shen
From: unruh on 1 Apr 2010 14:26 On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen(a)t-online.de> wrote: > unruh wrote: >> Mok-Kong Shen wrote: > >>> Leaving first the special case of computer aside and considering >>> the general issue of protecting people from themselves, I suppose >>> the strong need of government regulations stems at least in >>> essential part from the non-existence of (or 'practical' difficulty of >>> obtaining) the knowledge of the dangers on the part of the normal >>> people. That's why e.g. certain medicaments can (in most countries) >>> only be obtained with doctor's prescription. In a certain sense the >>> governments play the role of parents with respect to their kids here >>> in my humble view. >> >> Protection of their citizens is a first duty of government. That is why >> they have armies, laws, courts, police. Exactly how far that duty >> extends is one of the debates that has always raged. >> Noone has the knowledge needed in order to protect themselves from all >> possible sources of harm. Thus the duty on those who do have the >> knowledge in some area to protect those that do not in that area. >> This has nothing to do with parents and kids except that parents have >> more knowledge than the kids do of the dangers. > > In my personal view, those who have more knowledge also have the > (moral) responsibility to correspondingly render adequate protection > tp those lacking knowledge. This is clearly the case with parents > and children. I think that this is also the case e.g. with pedestrians > when one sees that some blind or almost blind person walks into > a dangerous zone. It may also be people's moral responsibility not to murder their fellow man. Unfortunately people do not always live up to what you consider their moral responsiblity. It has been decided that for the common good, one should also have laws which enforce such moral responsibility, and punish those who do not live up the moral standards. Exactly where one should draw the boundary between moral suasion and legal penalties is one of the contentious aspects of government. What is one person's moral failing is the next one's freedom. > > M. K. Shen >
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 1 Apr 2010 14:53
unruh wrote: > It may also be people's moral responsibility not to murder their fellow > man. Unfortunately people do not always live up to what you consider > their moral responsiblity. It has been decided that for the common good, > one should also have laws which enforce such moral responsibility, and > punish those who do not live up the moral standards. Exactly where one > should draw the boundary between moral suasion and legal penalties is > one of the contentious aspects of government. What is one person's moral > failing is the next one's freedom. It is exactly the content of your last sentence that underlies all evils of this world, from world war down to tiny delicts, isn't it? M. K. Shen |