Security vs. Privacy

[piyopiyo13]

So it's been on the news a lot... it's been around in the forums and in my latest Popular Science. Things about the US trying to make itself more secure. At the same time, we get hundreds of complaints of loss of freedom.

I think that, as law-abiding citizens, most of us will think of security as something that only applies to other people. After all, if I'm a law-abiding citizen, then there's no reason to slap security measures on me. If the government starts looking at my email, or has some spy sattelite focusing in on me taking a stool, I'm going to complain that I'm losing my freedom. Of course, at the same time, every other law-abiding citizen is thinking the same thing. So what happens in the end is that the government has to keep an eye on everybody and everything. What can it do? It got slapped for not having enough security measures after 9/11. It's getting slapped again for invading our privact as it steps up security.

My question is: is it possible to attain heightened security without losing freedom? If so, how? Doesn't the very word "secure" mean "not free"?

Thoughts?

[daveleau]

It is possible to attain security without losing freedom. You just have to limit the freedom of criminals and not of the general populace.

A speech by Lincoln in his 1864 campaign:
"The Shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shephard as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as a destroyer of liberty"
-Lincoln on Leaderhip by Phillips

Also Ben Franklin's quote is so fitting here as well:
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

[piyopiyo13]

Originally posted by daveleau
You just have to limit the freedom of criminals and not of the general populace.

Easier said than done, IMHO. For starters, how are you going to tell who's a criminal and who's not without looking into people's lives? Sure, you could wait till they commit a crime, but that would defeat the purpose of security.

[daveleau]

The real threat is from within. The threat from outside is easily combatted, b/c they are not part of American freedom and our laws should reflect this. Once you are inside (a citizen), there is a different standard. As I said, the real threat is from within. There are only 2 ways to combat this:
1- be reactive instead of proactive
2- take away liberty

I would rather follow #1. The vast majority of Americans are law abiding, evel headed citizens. There is going to be a bad apple though with whom we should react very harshly. Of course we can set up failsafes that do not alter our freedoms.

[Toadman]

Of course these fail-safes are subject to being legislatively overridden by the demands of emotional and dependent sheep votors who want big daddy government to protect them from the bad boogieman, especially after a particularly horrible tragedy whether it be a terrorist strike or an abducted child. So where's the trip-wire being defined at, where we can restrict no more freedoms before going totalitarian? There will no doubt be another Civil War if it goes beyond that point.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" -Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Especially fear that leads to emotional knee-jerk laws including restrictions of basic constitutional freedoms. Be careful of what you ask for, you might just get it. The government will be happy to oblige using your tax money for funding. It's their job.

[CERuppel]

Good thread!

How does goverment protect the citizen from both the enemy and itself? In order to even identify the enemy the goverment is going to have to invade some privacy. At the same time we the citizens want to be protected we also want our privacy. But...

I think that goverment is going to have to get more agressive about the freedom of foriegn nationals within our borders. As has been pointed out for many decades it has been possible for foriegners to hire a charter plane and take aerial photos of most any placein the US they wanted to. Or worse...

"But this sort of thing ended with the cold war". Please, I am tired of reminding people that our security is as important today for us as it will be in a hundred years for our grandchildren.

Perhaps placing the anti-terrorist efforts outside the normal legal system has one good point. If the anti-terrorist investigation uncovers something (copyright infringement, you used your mothers credit card...) they would not be able to use it in regular court (illegal search and siezure). I think... (any lawyers here?)

However the very single purpose of the A-T investigation might be even greater than we thought. Imagine being able to ask the crooks to help you, and they DO!

However the fact that the goverment is not going to arrest me because of something on my hard drive (that is actually innocent) is not going to actually help. My privacy has been burst, and any real chance at open discussion has been compromised. Imagine just how attractive the hard drives of the major politicals are going to be to their rivals...

And so on. Even the justifacation of "we won't use this in court except against terrorists" falls down. Because of human nature. And that is the problem. Human nature.

Human nature leads to lots of things from greed to envy to love to compassion and all the rest. But because it exsists we can never be sure that power such as the A_T crowd wants won't be abused. Remember McCarthy? And his commitee technically had no more power than to summon people for open questioning... The A-T people want alot more than that, and how much more will they take along with it?

Sorry to get long winded here, trying to talk out some ideas of my own, thanx for reading.

[piyopiyo13]

I agree with the points above, that perhaps security within our borders might just have to stay reactive instead of proactive, and that easy access to personal hard drive data and security-laced hardware would be going too far.

But sometimes I just feel that people whine far too much about the government's invasion of their privacy. An example of an "invasion of privacy": Traffic cameras that take a picture of your car if you drive by it going over the speed limit.

When such an idea was proposed, the general populace cried foul, claiming that it was an invasion of their privacy. How this this an invasion of privacy? If you're doing something illegal and endangering the lives of other people who abide the law by driving too fast, then how is it immoral for the government to employ such methods to protect the people?

[newbie~wan]

I agree with the traffic cameras. The reason being that speeding places others lives in danger - a decision that you do not have the right to make. Also, since its a public place, I think there should be a little less privacy. These cameras would nearly eliminate the need for highway patrol and would be FAR more effective.

We all know the feeling. People don't feel obligated to do the speed limit, but when they see the cop in the median, break lights come on and people look the other way like they didn't even see him, like they were just being a good citizen. What a load of crap! The cowards can't even look at the officer. If people knew they were being CONSTANTLY watched on the road, it would eliminate speeding because it wouldnt be possible to get away with it.

[CERuppel]

Been reading some more about this, and came across a couple of good articles. They are about the "Trusted Computer" inititive going on in Europe. If you haven't heard of it, it is basically a move to place goverments (yes, multiple) in control of the internet within thier borders.

But the way he talks about personal freedom and privacy...

Can anyone confirm his sanity?

He wants the world (the parts online) to surrender thier freedom and privacy in the name "the greater good? Whose greater good?

Surely not the greater good of anyone that hopes to use thier computer for creative work (anyone in goverment or who goverment likes could just take what they wanted from you...).

The RIAA would seem to be his closest partner, ideaology whise. They both want to remove that inconvenient law that keeps them out of private places. And they both want to have the right to decide what is right (what a trusted app is/what a copyright is) for you to have and use on your computer.

Worst for me is that the intellegent and often usefull news people at the register seem to be totally on this guys side... All but the one comment by the interviewer are positive or lead into his arguements.

And on a personal note: The open attacks he makes against the US Constitution are infuriating. He holds up the first amendment (freedom of speech) and declares it evil! How is freedom of speech wrong? I thought he was using it to express his opinion...

He also constantly shoots at the goverments (US and others) for being against the common man, and then turns around and wants to hand over all this authority to those same goverments???

heres the link to the interview, other articles regarding this are linked at the bottom of he interview...

http://www.theregus.com/content/7/25936.html