IP: Re: the Net needs to be public safety friendly, now

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:25:07 -0400
> Subject: Re: IP: Re: the Net needs to be public safety friendly, now
> From: Kai Lui <kai () kailui com>
> To: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
> Dave:
>
> It is interesting that Brint analogized our right of privacy to our right to
> bear arms. Both are derived from the Constitution: the former is implied
> from the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments; the latter
> expressly granted by the 2nd Amendment. Neither is absolute.
>
> We all have read the oft-quoted aphorism from Ben Franklin, which I
> understand to be a favorite quote of yours:
>
> "Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security,
> deserve neither liberty nor security."
>
> It has become a rallying cry of sorts for many civil libertarians who would
> oppose any intrusion from law enforcement agencies, such as the installation
> of Carnivore at ISPs and control of encryption technologies.
>
> It seems likely that I lost a friend at the WTC. If I could have traded her
> being alive for the FBI's seeing every piece of email I will ever write, I
> would have jumped at the offer.
>
> It's incomprehensible to me that the NRA, which opposes even sensible
> regulations such as a 7-day waiting period for background checks, will not
> budge from their position of an absolute, unfettered access to firearms of
> all kinds, including assault weapons, so that one person might be saved.
>
> Likewise, I cannot understand why anyone would not budge from their position
> of an absolute right of privacy, which is NOT guaranteed by the
> Constitution, so that 1 person might be saved.
>
> I still agree with Ben Franklin; it is the definition of "essential
> liberties" that is disputable.
>
>
> Kai Lui
> Attorney at Law
> Computer Consultant



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/