Choose: Privacy or Security

the said:
I dont think its possible to have 100% of either one, this is just philosophical ponderings. Personal privacy is a part of security so the comparison is silly and lends itself to conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

while i agree with the first element of your statement, i believe she was referring to security in the context of safety, not the privacy inherent in information security. (Unless you were referring to that as well.)
 
rawr said:
while i agree with the first element of your statement, i believe she was referring to security in the context of safety, not the privacy inherent in information security. (Unless you were referring to that as well.)
Click to expand...

Privacy is applicable to all those things you mentioned.
 
Drones over America has stepped over the line, imho.
 
i will choose privacy over 'security' any day.
i'd rather take care of myself and have the government mind its own business
 
think about your loved ones, and for those of you who are parents, think about your children. Is having Privacy all that worth it?
Click to expand...

I would be thinking of my loved ones by defending my girlfriend's freedom to be secure in her person, and not be raped by a TSA agent, as we board a plane, I would be thinking of my loved ones in opposing police power and brutality, as you're 8 times more likely to be murdered by a police officer, as you are to be killed by a terrorist, in fact, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. When you forfeit your rights because you're scared, you only play into the hands of other abusers. People who thirst for power and control thrive on using the fear of a populace to accomplish their ends. It's a textbook political scam. In the end, security without freedom is a lie, you only become vulnerable to a more powerful and entrenched bully.
 
While initially I would lean towards a preference for privacy, it's a much more difficult decision for me if I look at the security from a purely hypothetical standpoint as opposed to within the context of living as a citizen within the borders of an established global superpower. Sure, you can say you want the government out of your bzns, as do I, but would you be quite so quick to say yes if that entailed placing your family in an environment such as, say, Mogadishu? To me, it's a tougher sell when you're not living in a place that already has a well-established infrastructure and a relatively high standard of living compared to the 3rd world, not to forget 1st world urban and rural ghettos where in some cases the cops won't be there even if you need them. I might be willing to give it a try, but I'm not sure I would want to subject my family to it, assuming that the circumstances were that extreme.

Oh yeah, and I think that it is possible to strike a balance, but the applicability and effectiveness of an established standard lessen as the population that it is applied to increases from the individual level to the global level.
 
Last edited:
I keep thinking how they managed to shut down Boston after the bombing and call for what amounted to martial law and how lots of people were like "yeah!". I found that very disturbing.
 
what is the ratio of islamic extremists to nuclear war heads in pakistan?
 
Nixie said:
I keep thinking how they managed to shut down Boston after the bombing and call for what amounted to martial law and how lots of people were like "yeah!". I found that very disturbing.
Click to expand...

I did too, and wonder how many people refused to let the authorities into their homes to search them without any probable cause or warrant, and what happened to them.

Quite frankly I want privacy. Security comes when the government isn't meddling in our affairs.
 
Sriracha said:
Has either of their opinion worked?
Click to expand...

I honestly wouldn't know about that; I merely know the principle:

Ad hominem — attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
 
I'd like to ramble and rant, basically;

I don't know and dare not make an opinion regarding the US security and/or privacy issues, but I think that a lot of the initial gut responses over privacy is made by three things;
1) Nineteen Eighty-Four-- which is essentially the endgame of the restriction of privacy. And it -is- terrifying.
At the same time we are essentially looking at ghosts. A terrifying future ghost with tons of potential, of course, but still a ghost.
It's not as if saying "OH OBAMA SAVE US" will suddenly cause the Ministries of Love and Plenty and Truth and Peace to erect.
At the same time, it doesn't mean it won't ever erect.

2) Our own shame.

For a lot of likely innocent people, they have no need to be afraid. And yet a lot understandably do.
Which-- for a lot of the majority, a lot of people who minded their own business (racial/political/ethnic biases aside), the threat towards privacy means an unwilling awareness and/or exposure over things we did. The shameful, unsavory things. That midget porn we watched for fun, the rape fantasy fiction we may have read, trash talking a friend and gossiping about, the mp3 we downloaded and the game we torrented; our inner thoughts and sex talks and doubts about government.
I get a feeling the fear of shame takes a huge part, fear of confronting the things we did and will do and may have done...together with the repercussions.
But not all-- just some. A lot of people are afraid of the future-- if the current measures are met with silence for now; what about the future? Will the power try to push the measure further?

3) In other words, I see the US citizen is afraid of the slippery slope. Where is the line and when is enough enough?
It is a fair question.

The choice of security OTOH is a lot based on the trust for the government; that the government will do good, will upheld their promises, will not exploit or abuse the holes and flaws and all the imperfections inside a rule and its application.

Not to mention a lot of people choosing privacy is often living in a somewhat privileged situation, in a place where violence didn't happen OFTEN.
At the same time the other side of this matter is police brutality.

I think it is good to realize that for both choices, we are still giving up a certain amount of power and control for them-- whether it's for the sake of security or the sake of liberty.
Giving up power for the sake of security is obvious, but for liberty, really all the US citizen did is not like "SWIPER STOP SWIPING" but something like liberty fee. "Hey, I'm giving you this and that, but don't disturb me."

Which...really, when the other party WANTS nothing but those two resources....they WILL find a way.
rawr said:
  • Privacy is more or less dead - and not just due to governments, but our own willingness to share information
Click to expand...
This is also scarily true.

Sriracha said:
Both political characters are crooked in their own way. Why should we consider what either of them say is true?
Click to expand...
And this. >_>;
I'd also think about context; there weren't any internet or twitter or hell even television at that time-- with which the speed of information was increased tremendously.
 
Last edited:
Some good points [MENTION=2172]Trifoilum[/MENTION] I saw my belief in government summed up nicely once: Sure you cant trust the government, ask an Indian.
 
There are many new types technologies that are threatening to eliminate personal privacy such as the internet of things I don't think it's a good thing, but people are more open these days. I played a game that dealt with this issue and it suggested that our children will see privacy as an antiquated notion.
 
Jacobi said:
There are many new types technologies that are threatening to eliminate personal privacy such as the internet of things I don't think it's a good thing, but people are more open these days. I played a game that dealt with this issue and it suggested that our children will see privacy as an antiquated notion.
Click to expand...

I was just reading an article about how face recognition technology is improving by leaps and bounds.
Police departments are already using character recognition equipment to passively run the license plate numbers of passing cars for various reasons. It won't be that far off they will do it to people walking down a street minding their own business.
Have a government issued picture ID such as a driver's license? They have your photo to put into the data base.
Scary shit if you ask me. Orwellian.
 
MindYourHead said:
I was just reading an article about how face recognition technology is improving by leaps and bounds.
Police departments are already using character recognition equipment to passively run the license plate numbers of passing cars for various reasons. It won't be that far off they will do it to people walking down a street minding their own business.
Have a government issued picture ID such as a driver's license? They have your photo to put into the data base.
Scary shit if you ask me. Orwellian.
Click to expand...
Or the businesses that do these things who have no real onus to watch out for your privacy. When you use a shoppers card and offers that are "tailored" to your needs. If you walk into a place that has video surveillance. Or those things that require you to "register" giving up a cell phone number and/or email address. I was really glad I don't use a big phone company that regularly reports information about who is calling me to the government. I have a throw-away cell phone that I put minutes on. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top