You are correct to suggest that common sense will get us pretty far. Some problems with your argument, though: 1. Anecdotal evidence about not being hit by a virus. Argument by anecdote is weak rhetoric. 2. Not being hit is a weak statistical argument to imply that you are secure. Really the same as the above, if you look closely enough (that is, argument is "effect therefore cause") Consider: "I've been crossing the freeway on foot for 30 years, and have never been hit by a car." Does this imply crossing the freeway on foot is safe? Moreover, in the case of computer breaches, you may have been hit, and not know it. 3. You seem to imply that the road to security is to use OpenBSD. I hope you aren't proposing an OpenBSD monoculture. I think a much more obvious argument would be: What happens if we have a two-tier internet? If we do, then they either interface, or do not. If they interface, how many unregulated interfaces are there? If only a handful, people will stick with the "old internet". If there are enough to promote "anonymity", people will use the technically impoved version, but the anonymity battle will have been conceded. If they don't interface, then it must be because of control exerted on the improved internet. As already mentioned, people will avoid this control for various reasons. Similar arguments can be made for security concerns.