How much cyber security is really there?
in [Cryptography]
|
From: unruh on 1 Apr 2010 17:25 On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen(a)t-online.de> wrote: > 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? I guess so, but it is also something that can never be defined once and for all. It depends. Even in societies in which personal freedom has a much higher value than group safety, if the group is attacked, suddenly personal freedom goes out the window-- look at free speech, and the right of a soldier to tell someone on the other side what todays attack plans are. > > M. K. Shen
From: bmearns on 2 Apr 2010 08:34 On Apr 1, 6:50 am, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(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. > > M. K. Shen Well said, and a good point. It is difficult for people to know and understand all the dangers they face, and having some agency whose purpose is to understand those dangers is reasonable. Of course it is not just black and white; government regulations on the food industry to prevent them from poisoning the citizens is probably a good thing, government telling us we can't use computers because we might accidentally give away our credit card number is almost certainly not (in my opinion, naturally). -Brian
From: WTShaw on 3 Apr 2010 04:22 On Apr 1, 11:03 am, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(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 Being more obsessed with using their offices as a way to wealth at the detriment of the citizens is all too common. Here, Dread Scott would be feeling somewhat at home. As away to evade responsibility, a case of mine has gone to default against a company. If I get paid, I'm sure that it might look different on the surface but not to the company who was dupe into stupid action. The knowledge too many possess is how to work the system. That was not my plan as people merely needed to behave.
From: WTShaw on 3 Apr 2010 04:24 On Apr 1, 1:26 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(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 Honoring the living constitution here is better that trying to read the law like a religious fanatic reads the bible.
From: WTShaw on 3 Apr 2010 04:30
On Apr 1, 1:26 pm, unruh <un...(a)wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > On 2010-04-01, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(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 Some times personal responsibility is to enforce the law in lieu of official willingness to do so.. Self-defense might involve extreme force, but again that would not be murder but justice. It's a shame that it does come to this too often when their is a true abrogation of responsible enforcement, or why me...again...in that situation? |