Ian Grigg writes: >> I don't think mere monetary costs are even germane to >> something like this. The costs, publicly and personally, >> are of a different kind than money expresses. > >I'm sorry to disagree, but I'm sticking to my >cost-benefit analysis: monetary costs are totally >germane. You see, we need some way in which >to measure the harm. It's either subjective as >you describe above, which can't support an >infrastructure decision, or its objective, which >means, money.
I'm skeptical. Just because the cost is subjective doesn't mean we should ignore the cost. >But, luckily, there is a way to turn the above >subjective morass of harm into an objective >hard number: civil suit. That's using a questionable measuring stick. The damages paid out in a civil suit may be very different (either higher, or lower) than the true cost of the misconduct. Remember, the courts are not intended to be a remedy for all harms, nor could they ever be. The courts shouldn't be a replacement for our independent judgement. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
