There is a general recognition that the tenets must be read in light of the need to protect another's rights. While this is appropriate, it does not adequately recognize the sharpness of the potential conflict. The second tenet implies that blocking of caller ID may be inappropriate, and this implied right of authentication may be either overstated or unintended. Because security needs are defined in part by technological alternatives, more detailed consideration of technology options would be helpful. It is unclear whether this refers to protection of systems or to protection of intellectual property, and this vagueness might lead to the incorrect conclusion that there are current technological methods for protecting intellectual property once it has been released from a protected network.
More clarity is needed here.
The same section also would benefit from a mention of the issue of liability and a reference to the later discussion. Also appropriate here would be some consideration of the conflict between the benefits of open systems and the benefits of encryption. Clearer laws will certainly help. The present legal uncertainties do not, however, preclude recognition for a policy that each person is responsible for his or her own actions. The paper already concludes appropriately by emphasizing awareness of risk and informed choice in light of that risk.