From: DDeBar (spikey@BestWeb.net)
Date: Thu Sep 27 2001 - 10:52:23 EDT
And who will explain to the thousands of victims that may follow from an
attack upon other nations that the accidental deaths of collateral civilians
did, indeed, trigger another round of attacks here in the US which,
unfortunately, took their (my?) loved ones this time?
This is a very complex problem that requires more than mindless herd
identification responses but, rather, equally complex analysis and pin-point
accuracy in the delivery of the subsequent set of responses.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ching wah chin" <chingwchin@yahoo.com>
To: <watpa@westnet.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: WATPA: CPSR's Response to September 11th Events (fwd)
> although all patriotic americans should
> share in the concern at the anticipated
> erosion of civil liberties due to the
> present governmental drive towards the
> use and control of technologies against
> terrorism, we should also not forget
> that technologies by their very nature
> generally are intent neutral. even the
> most heinous weapon of destruction can
> be beneficial if used for a productive
> purpose; even the most innocuous tool
> can be used to torture and maim.
>
> unfortunately, the terrorist attacks
> have destroyed the core assumption
> supporting any hope for narrow
> scope and duration. this is not a
> temporary or limited war. the
> terrorist attacks have initiated a
> long war directed at the heart
> of our existence, which can only be
> fought on broad fronts with patience
> and stamina. and with far far higher
> stakes than for the usual shoplifting
> suspect or demonstrator resisting arrest.
>
> who would want to explain to the next
> thousands of terrorist victims that
> an attack was not stopped because the
> terrorist had rights?
>
> an over simplification of the issue,
> such as an unthinking denial of the
> tools to combat terrorism, will simply
> ensure the next disaster. oversight
> of the use of those tools, as is
> presently already available through
> civil remedies, may be a safer
> alternative, while still preserving
> those liberties of a civil society.
> any intentional abuse of tools should
> be dealt with swiftly and severely,
> perhaps even mandatory redress made
> for honest errors in judgment; there
> must be no carte blanche to strip
> americans of their very essence as
> free americans. but handcuffing
> methods to stop terrorism, will simply
> prolong the war and increase the
> casualties.
>
> this in no way downplays the difficulties
> in balancing civil liberties with
> necessary police powers. it is true
> that terrorists by their very acts reject
> any interest in further discussions
> with them. but it is just as true
> that terrorists will win if we can
> no longer enjoy free discussions
> amongst ourselves.
>
> ching wah chin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Langham [SMTP:blangham@westnet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:06 PM
> To: watpa@westnet.com
> Subject: WATPA: CPSR's Response to September 11th
> Events (fwd)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: 20 Sep 2001 17:37:35 -0000
> From: sevoy@quark.cpsr.org
> To: colleagues@quark.cpsr.org
> Subject: CPSR's Response to September 11th Events
>
>
> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
> shares in the
> worldwide shock and horror in response to the
> September 11
> terrorists attacks. As computer professionals, we are
> deeply
> saddened to see the use of technology for such
> destructive purposes.
> We hope to see technologists helping, perhaps in minor
> but
> important roles, in restoring infrastructure and
> preventing future
> attacks.
>
> The events of the past week have left Americans from
> preschoolers to
> policy-makers confused, scared, and searching for
> appropriate
> responses. Although the desire for swift action is
> understandable,
> decisions made at this time may affect our world for
> years to
> come. As we formulate reactions to these attacks, we
> should consider
> the reasoning behind these decisions, and work to
> avoid simplistic
> responses.
>
> The world we live in is one of advanced communications
> and computer
> technology that may seem threatening. It has only
> been a few days
> since the hijackings, but the Senate has already
> passed legislation
> increasing federal wiretap powers, and new legislation
> to limit the
> use of cryptography has been discussed.
>
> It's certainly true that cryptography and the Internet
> could be used
> as tools for planning of terror. However, these tools
> serve useful,
> valid purposes that should be protected. On September
> 11, we learned
> the awesome destructive potential that commercial
> jetliners have when
> used as weapons, but no serious commentators have
> suggested banning
> passenger airplanes. Cryptography and email have been
> lifelines for
> oppressed peoples fearing reprisals for open
> communications.
>
> Used correctly, encryption technologies might even be
> powerful weapons
> in the fight against terrorism, as concerned
> individuals in areas
> occupied by terrorists might provide valuable
> information via
> encrypted channels.
>
> Increases in the use of Internet surveillance
> technologies like
> Carnivore and new limits of encryption are short-term
> actions that
> may have the appearance of bold action, but their
> value is limited and
> their costs may be real.
>
> New legislation allowing the increased use of
> surveillance in order to
> track terrorists has been discussed. Protection of
> civil liberties
> requires that any such legislation should be narrow in
> scope and duration.
>
> These hijackings also demonstrate the shortcomings of
> the National
> Missile Defense proposals. Space-based missile
> systems could not have
> prevented hijackers from taking over the planes. Even
> if an NMD system
> had been in place, and the planes had been tracked,
> it's far from
> clear that they could have been shot down without
> causing death and
> destruction comparable to - if not worse than - that
> which happened
> during the crashes.
>
> This is not to say that there is no role for
> thoughtful use of
> technology in trying to prevent future terrorist
> actions. Improved
> security scanners, passenger "panic buttons" on
> airlines, cross-checks
> between passenger names and FBI "watch lists" are
> just few of the
> tools that might be implemented to increase airline
> security and
> reduce the latitude for future attacks.
>
> Tradeoffs between liberty and security are not
> appropriate if the
> liberty lost is real and the security gained is
> illusory. Political,
> military, and business leaders should work towards
> solutions that
> will provide meaningful security while respecting
> civil liberties.
>
>
> > Susan Evoy * Managing Director
> > http://www.cpsr.org/home.html
> > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
> > P.O. Box 717 * Palo Alto * CA * 94302
> > Phone: (650) 322-3778 * Fax: (650) 322-4748
> *
> Email: evoy@cpsr.org
>
> Join/Renew online:
> https://swww.igc.apc.org/cpsr/sec-membership-form.html
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
> http://phone.yahoo.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 31 2002 - 23:55:02 EDT