From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 18:09:38 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> -Eugen wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The methods you advocate are consistent with a siege mentality.
>>
>>Regardless what they're consistent with, they are methods *which
>>work*.
>
>
> ### So how will radiation sensors help you deal with dirty bombs, if at the
> same time you are making strenuous efforts to respect the privacy of the
> bomb makers?
>
So, you would treat everyone like a bomb maker just to be
"safe"? Is that it?
> -----
>
>>Constant vigilance is what automation is for. There's nothing very
>>heroic in a distributed society. The defense is purely passive; and
>>hence will work regardless of whatever you're deploying. As long as
>>you're not dropping ecovorous nanoplagues, or planet crackers.
>
>
So tell me how to apply constant vigilance to preserving
freedom. K? Cause otherwise your constant vigilance sounds
like being utterly powerless and at the mercy of the State.
"Safety" isn't worth that to me. Not remotely.
>
> ### Why should a smart terrorist waste time on symbols, Federal Buildings,
> Pentagons, and WTC's, if with a sniper gun he can bring the whole capital to
> its knees before being finally caught (not by sniper sensors, but by snoops,
> spooks, snitches, and ubiquitous surveillance).
>
So let's treat everyone like a sniper. Thanks, Mr. Sniper, for
the lesson. See how well we have learned it.
- samantha
p.s. After XMAS blues. What's your excuse?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:55 MST