Re: [work] Integrity of Debian packages
I guess giving up some freedom for the sake of some security means also
giving up the right to define what security is.
I'd prefer to face the common terrorists rather than the
terrorist state. I'll still have a chance to fight back.
This is said by a citizen of a country whose army, in the last
century, won only the fights against it's own citizens (well, except a
war when they did not fire a shot becase the enemy was too shocked by
the suprise, but, anyway, the army was decimated by desinteria).
As far as I am concerned, I'd prefer to arrange my own security, since
suicide bombers won't stopped by "carnivores" more than are they stopped
by bullets. As long as the basics of building destructive devices are
learned in secondary schools, and as long as it is not considered
feasible to reserve this knowledge (I mean, electricity and chemistry)to
a "trustworthy elite" there would be no protection from mad|brainwashed|fanatic|interested bombers, and
nobody can convince me that that "elite" would be completely sane and
under control, or that it would not employ terrorism in order to protect
its privileges and enforce obedience.
I apologise for my poor English, but I belive that waiting for more
than 30 minutes to download the thread over a very slow line give me the
right to post my off-off-topic opinion.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:09:02 -0500
Gary MacDougall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> You can quote Ben Franklin all you want, but Ben Franklin's world was
> a far simpler, easy to
> undersand and clearly not as geographical world as ours is today.