(Up to: Scalability Technology Vs Evolution )

A conflict of interest, or is there a practical resolution? On one hand, I think that we should be ultimately paranoid when it comes to network security, i.e. locking down machines to prevent crackers getting in. But on the other hand, I think that the opposite should be true of "meatspace", i.e. that problems that we currently solve by putting more police on the streets, more cameras on bulidings and more people in jail, I think would be far better solved by working out why the problems are there in the first place.

Maybe it comes down to the geographical thing - a PC connected to the internet is extremely arbitrary - it is just a number, and it is subject to random scans and non-discriminating attacks, and as such it's so difficult to build up any kind of reasoned defence, that complete paranoia is the best way. When it comes to a tangible, societal situation though, we are dealing with people rather than machines, which changes everything - there is a level of reasoning and assessment there. Perhaps this also comes down to a scalability thing - the more people there are in a particular network, then the more abritrary they become, and the less you can use reason. Hence why we need to encourage decentralisation, not throw everyone into cities.

Need to work on this one...

See also Security vs Legacy.

(See also: Security Vs Legacy )