On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:16:13AM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:18:10AM -0800, Dan Wilder wrote: > > > > But who also want, or will soon want, to be free of the burden of > > exponentially increasing spam. The two objectives cannot both be attained. > > > > > So, your position is that we should surrender the liberties we now enjoy > for additional security? A large part of me says that the two need not > be mutually exclusive.
That isn't my position. My position is there's no prior reason to assume there is no tradeoff. In some cases, certainly there isn't. In the cases where a tradeoff is present, what may be acceptable is always a legitimate subject for discussion. However this thread has gone on for an awful long time, and is at this point very far off-topic. I've said my piece and will now be quiet. -- Dan Wilder
