There’s been a rash of break-ins in my neighborhood.
Because of this minor crime spree, we’ve taken a second look our home security practices. For example, I no longer leave the front door unlocked when I walk the dog. I also realized that garage door openers are pretty easy to fool, so I probably should make sure that my tool boxes are locked, and the door from the garage to the house stays locked.
One minor conundrum were the dirtbikes. They’re not keyed like a regular motorcycle, and they’re very light weight. While I’m not dumb enough to think I could stop a determined thief, I figured I could at least stop a lazier one, so I chained them together with some really heavy chain, and chained them to the chock on the floor, too.
This is when I discovered that I had surrendered easy access and thereby some freedom. In the past, when I wanted to use or move a dirtbike, I just jumped on it, turned it on, and went. Now I have to unchain it from its partner and the chock. Doesn’t take but a minute or two, but it might be enough to stop me from moving them to clean under them, or to make access to something easier. It definitely means that loading takes another couple minutes. In general, I’ve given up a little bit of access, and a little bit of freedom.
Anyone in IT knows this conundrum, too. We all want access to information, but there’s a delicate balance between providing access and securing what needs to be secured. In the end, nobody is satisfied – you’re not secure enough, nor do you have good access.
In regards to what that means in our current political environment, I’m going to let you draw your own conclusions. I’ll leave you with this old saw from Ben Franklin:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.