[IP] more on Op-Ed Columnist: May I See Your ID?
From: Rich Wiggins <wiggins@xxxxxxx>
Dave,
I am a big believer in free speech, almost an absolutist. I also
think you need to take a rational, statistical, public health
approach to threats. So these arguments against censoring, for
instance, the patent on how to make toxic ricin, appeal to me.
But there is a valid case on the other side.
A recent letter to the New York Times claimed that since photography
has been around for well over a century, hand held cell phones with
cameras could never constitute an invasion of privacy.
This is of course nonsense. In 1865 only Matthew Brady and a
handful of peers carried around cumbersome cameras. Put a 6 ounce
digital camera in the pockets of millions of people, and there
will be thousands of egregious violations of privacy. Invasions are
well documented -- in locker rooms, bathrooms, nude beaches, whatever.
We know that terrorists exist. We know they use the Internet.
Yes, they have their own cookbooks and manuals. But if information
is readily available to the, say, million or so terrorists on this
planet, it is a statistical certainty that more deaths will occur.
When we put public health information online, we hope and believe
it will save lives. When we make it easy to Google how to make
ricin, it is foolish in the extreme to conclude no one will follow
the instructions. You either believe that the ready availability
of information on the Internet changes lives and behaviors, or you
don't. No fair believing that only good information changes behavior.
All of this said, I do not know if we should censor as Kristof
proposed in his Op Ed column. How many additional deaths do we
tolerate to preserve free speech? (Cue the Ben Franklin quote...)
/rich
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/