Ian Grigg writes:
>> I don't think mere monetary costs are even germane to
>> something like this.  The costs, publicly and personally,
>> are of a different kind than money expresses.
>I'm sorry to disagree, but I'm sticking to my
>cost-benefit analysis:  monetary costs are totally
>germane.  You see, we need some way in which
>to measure the harm.  It's either subjective as
>you describe above, which can't support an
>infrastructure decision, or its objective, which
>means, money.

I'm skeptical.  Just because the cost is
subjective doesn't mean we should ignore the cost.

>But, luckily, there is a way to turn the above
>subjective morass of harm into an objective
>hard number:  civil suit.

That's using a questionable measuring stick.
The damages paid out in a civil suit may be very
different (either higher, or lower) than the true
cost of the misconduct.  Remember, the courts are
not intended to be a remedy for all harms, nor could
they ever be.  The courts shouldn't be a replacement
for our independent judgement.

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to