Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 05/20/2014 09:07 AM, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 21:47:57 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/14, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But this is precisely the problem with some of the dogmatic
>>> idealists here - by this logic, we should abolish criminal
>>> justice entirely, as it's virtually impossible to guarantee that
>>> "no one blameless" will ever be "persecuted":
>>> http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
>>
>> I don't remember reading the words Slavko posted before, but the
>> way I read it is as: "we must make our best efforts to not
>> persecute blameless people" and "if blameless people are being
>> persecuted, we must make more efforts [eg with our criminal justice
>> system - to fix this problem]".
>>
>> So not abolish criminal justice, but make more efforts in this
>> system to reduce/minimize persecution/punishment of people who
>> should not be punished.
>>
>> Of course perfection cannot be achieved in reality, I agree.
>
> Of course. But while it's certainly not a zero-sum game, there's
> generally going to be a trade-off: increasing protections for
> defendants will save some innocents, at the expense of letting some
> guilty go free. The same goes for IP regulation: many of us at least
> believe that the law should balance the rights of the IP holders with
> the rights of the consumer, and insisting on absolute freedom for
> the consumer at the expense of the rights of the rights-holders is
> wrong.
So is the other way around.
There's a saying:
"It is better for X guilty persons to go free than for Y innocent
persons to be punished."
Traditionally, Y is 1 (with the accompanying change of "innocent
persons" to the singular), and I think X is something like 100 or 1000.
I present it in this form because I think it enables a valuable
question, particularly in context of the third level of quotation above:
What numbers would you pick for X and Y, for you to accept this
statement as being true?
I'd like to ask that question of every politician, and every police
officer, and so forth. I think it could be quite illuminating.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTe1V7AAoJEASpNY00KDJrMsIP/1UNn1K6mlUwoUs21JEUds57
SKr7cHjAOpHUA8mi1ULwAH/zFj03PwCzCx/VM8zTjsRxENZV5DQShHC0c38KK8dK
KBT6HKMEMf6qzslK2PIol9jYbLlZpnvbM17OHCjCKxCI3CULTqvfxAaEJ/iSPjIP
7lctA9rj9srr6eAO99nqzP0AZ7XjZOPfDAIZimpuHQ03GgkxpzqdOAJU7RSQuIi3
0aW3sVQ0S0QRGD+D4hi+ipRRzJhSHQau61E77v6xXdC43A71ONIwF2XnxwnPXvQ+
eDr9tFdnzFIzvWfxK3uEYfiKXG7AJqkkMhBUHS76EBu021pnry57ju1aIk+sRgap
mIUf+PU+i2bXPKclarLiAaJ6rHgaeOgroNyZz3urPGPZGQHZQhe5Daf7zof1Hnnx
HBx1Sf2zum6mZvw99OSvBLFusTTJf1j26q0Gloq/i8QzmA48/jbWxD85/bO4zgiS
p8BDcrN1xy6hJGYZRTnAUUN2HVqvAMOqf/a7tCiyzRQzm22frB7YAeAJrtF/A7lv
nPly6mkgLuV5IsE63veFAVO4Y8KDQtk5VCkFxItbx2wwgfXf0KvZ5kVgJYCwFpGb
sk2FK0tnoIfPnUD1VOgXAPDXR6jLvw7McZ+rk7TA840dlS7RIDBA1xaJJYxOzbFr
ukl/np7vbd8migBejyZi
=rXBg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: