Security vs. Privacy is really Control vs. Liberty
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control.Link (via Lawgeek)You can see it in comments by government officials: "Privacy no longer can mean anonymity," says Donald Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence. "Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information." Did you catch that? You're expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who -- presumably -- get to decide how much of it you deserve. That's what loss of liberty looks like.
It should be no surprise that people choose security over privacy: 51 to 29 percent in a recent poll. Even if you don't subscribe to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's obvious that security is more important. Security is vital to survival, not just of people but of every living thing. Privacy is unique to humans, but it's a social need. It's vital to personal dignity, to family life, to society -- to what makes us uniquely human -- but not to survival.
the latest
latest episodes
back to what I was saying about cctv; is having nothing to hide the same as having nothing to protect?
I've been thinking about this a lot since your CCTV post a few days ago. Here are some personal experiences.
In the 80s, I had my head bashed in during a gang assault on the way home from work and had to have facial reconstructive surgery, so I understand the need for security.
In the 70s, I had the Secret Service come to my house looking for me and had 'men in black' chase me down the street, know my name and threaten my life if I didn't desist my political activities, so I understand the need for privacy.
Between the two options, I'll take my chances with the gang.
have to agree
It is true that privacy is not needed for survival but privacy is a civil liberty guaranteed to us by the constitution. The government is using fear as a tool and a means of abusing their power to infringe on the very freedoms that this country prides itself over and that which the individual is completely sovereign over (or at least should be) while it goes unquestioned by the majority. I just feel that eavesdropping on peoples phone conversations, internet history and behavior etc. etc. is just the first step of many that can and will eventually lead to a totalitarian government system.
"The government which governs best, governs least."
If you've got nothing to hide... then you're at the very least an absolute bore and, worse.... probably not a true patriot in any way, shape or form.
BTW, has it not dawned on anyone that all the Bush admin illegal eavesdropping, etc.... just might... oh... "just might" be used to spy on business communications in order to thwart competition?
If you'd put THAT past the people in power; then you are truly a naive idiot.
Burt: Strange, I'm under the impression that material privacy is not codified in the Constitution beyond the third and fourth amendments. At the very least I haven't heard of any laws that would enable someone to go after companies that leak personal data in terms of civil liberties. Am I a victim of the public school system?
General Assembly of the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
I too agree with what all before have said. It strikes me that the greater part of what really disturbs certain people is the increase in freedom that is afforded by technology and the internet. They don't just don't think we can be trusted with that freedom.
Whereas before only the rich could buy newspapers and and shape public opinion, now anyone with a computer and internet connection can have their say if they want. The media really collude with government the way they give such emphasis to what's wrong with the world.
It's easy to understand why most people's fear of something bad happening is so out of proportion to the actual risk. This climate of fear then makes it that much easier to convince people that giving up their hard won liberties is the price they have to pay. It's pretty insidious.
Cowicide - Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't negate the fact that I am guaranteed my rights. You may have heard of these guys called "the founding fathers". I'm sure your a lot more patriotic than them but they made this thing called the constitution which attempts to insure rights to American's like you and I. Rights which I'm arguing for the protection of and rights which you feel are flexible and unimportant . Who's the patriot?
EH - Although non specific, the ninth amendment guarantees enumerated rights to the American citizen. These enumerated rights include natural rights, background rights, and fundamental rights. Specifically, what these rights entail is arguable unfortunately.
But on another note and more specifically addressing your response, just to be clear, my argument regarding security v. privacy is not aimed at the corporate sector but more towards the public sector. The liberties of the public which were infringed upon by bills such as the patriot act which was quickly rushed through the senate with little debate before being signed. With regards to your claim "that material privacy is not codified in the Constitution beyond the third and fourth amendments", this act is in direct violation of the fourth amendment as it bypasses the need for a search warrant with wiretaps. Don't play the "probable cause" card either because it's a cop out.
Apashiol - I agree with regarding how the advancement of technology within our media, such as the creation and accessibility of the internet to the average American citizen has opened many doors allowing them immeasurable freedom and influence but like I said before, the internet is not the only means of communication that the government has been unjustifiably sticking its nose into with the use of illegal wiretaps on phones which is in direct violation of the fourth amendment.
I find myself asking how people can have such blind faith and be so accepting of the media, specifically the news? It is indeed like you say, very insidious how the media and government can conspire to create this false sense of fear and use this in order to convince people to give up their rights because the government is looking out for their "best interests". Although this isn't so much the case now, can you remember when practically everyday after 9/11 for an extremely long time they were changing the terror threat level?
Cartoon clarification on the issue at http://ocnorml.org/images/security_fence.jpg
Burt, you might want to check some history before you start mentioning the Founding Fathers and rights to Privacy. Do you know what kind of searches (witch hunts) went on to ferret out British loyalists, before, during and after the Revolution? The Rebels did not have warrents. When the government in power has a mandate from the people (informal or formal concensus reality), then all the legal issues become moot points. But then again, we know what lemmings people are.
Next, they'll want all the guns.
I like the cartoon.
These witch trials were mainly conducted pre-constitution in the late 1600s. That's almost 100 years prior to the declaration of independence.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Ben Franklin
good quote
The temptation to use private information against a person is too great. I see information as a threat to my personal security, regardless of whose hands it resides in.
But given the 'ordered' nature of governments, I think that most would choose to have access to vast amounts of data as opposed to ignoring it. The difference TODAY is that access to this information is simply too easy to obtain. Privacy is a luxury. Who is going to go back to using paper systems when they have access to paperless ones?
#9 posted by Burt:
Burt, did you somehow hallucinate that I said something that would go against that? I think you udderly misunderstood what I was saying. Re-read. More carefully. Now moove along.