| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
Member
Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank: Guest | |
ynori7 wrote:
Nobody said it was a dichotomy. Nobody said it had to be one or the other. The debate topic was: should privacy be sacrificed for security, not how should we improve security. We're debating the validity of this particular solution.
As for your Benjamin Franklin quote, pwnzall already said it on page 2, and I believe I had a fairly good reply. Take a look.
ah i see the point of my argument has been missed in quite a one of you folks. my answer is NO <-- answer is located there.
am i allowed to elaborate? if yes, please reread my post above, it contains all i want to say about this topic. if not, then STFU yourself. kkthxbye
@pwnzall: sorry, i kinda skipped most of page 2 (not all of it!) but i did skip your post =(
|
 |
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
ynori7
Member
Posts: 1486
Location: #valhalla
Joined: 08.10.07
Rank: God | |
Folk Theory wrote:
ah i see the point of my argument has been missed in quite a one of you folks. my answer is NO <-- answer is located there.
am i allowed to elaborate? if yes, please reread my post above, it contains all i want to say about this topic. if not, then STFU yourself. kkthxbye
That was more hostile than necessary. I fully understood the point of your post, it was just your roundabout way of stating it and your poor interpretation of the topic that I was arguing about.
|
  |
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
Futility
Member
Posts: 733
Location: USA
Joined: 17.12.07
Rank: God | |
Alright. That's quite enough. It looks like this debate has sort of run its course. Real points are starting to appear few with tons of 'padding' in between. You've all seen both sides of the argument and have your opinions on who's right an wrong. You have two days until this thread is locked, a new one is posted, and a poll is set up. So finish up what you're trying to say and be sure to stay civil.
|
 |
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
Member
Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank: Guest | |
I figured I throw my 2 cents into the debate....
Privacy should not be sacrificed for the illusion of security.
True privacy on the internet is almost unattainable, so the question is do we willing allow the gov'mt to have more control over us? I've always been a Jefferson man, and his thoughts on the right to bear arms are somewhat similar to this situation...
Many liberal groups in the US have the idea that "if we make it illegal to own guns that we will be safer". I believe they fail to grasp the real concept behind the 2nd amendment.
As Jefferson said:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
I believe the same principle applies here, gov'mt can not take what we don't GIVE them, nor will they give back what we have already.
ironically there is quote on HBH that is also fitting:
Society leans ever heavily on computers, if you have the power to take out computers you can take out society. - cubeman372
I'm not advocating malicious attacks or anything of that nature, I'm saying we should protect our right to bear "digital" arms
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
ynori7
Member
Posts: 1486
Location: #valhalla
Joined: 08.10.07
Rank: God | |
Cracker_Jax wrote:
I believe the same principle applies here, gov'mt can not take what we don't GIVE them, nor will they give back what we have already.
Sure, but they can in fact take this because we have put it in their hands. We have given them our freedom, so if we commit a crime that freedom can be taken away. Just the same, if we are suspected of something illegal, a warrant can be obtained allowing investigators to invade our privacy.
As for your 'right to bear arms' analogy, clearly you must be an American. I want to hear from one of our British members on this. As I understand it, it's not a right, but a privilege with strict guidelines in other places such as the UK and Australia.
So to continue with your analogy from that perspective, I think that we have the privilege of privacy. If it becomes necessary for privacy to be limited in order help reduce security risks, then so be it.
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
AldarHawk
Member
Posts: 1690
Location: Canada
Joined: 26.01.06
Rank: Hacker Level 1 | |
I am starting to see the true colours come out. I agree that privacy is a privilege there fore we need to improve on security as I have been stating.
You all know my point of view on this, I do not need to show quotes from other people to get this across. I am solid in my thought that without security the privacy would fade (yes I know the same is in reverse) and you would have something that human nature cannot deal with. But that is another topic and my points have been said 
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
spyware
Member
Posts: 4192
Location:
Joined: 14.04.07
Rank: God
Warn Level: 90
| |
London is full of CCTV (camera's) which tape everything, always. They use this system to detect and prevent criminal activities.
Is this good? Why?
"The chowner of property." - Zeph [small]�Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term,
but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.� - Carl Sagan [center]�Since the grid is inescapable, what were the earlier lasers about? Does the corridor have a sense of humor?� - Ebert[/ce |
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
K3174N 420
Member
Posts: 296
Location: In a grow room, growing cannabis.
Joined: 14.09.08
Rank: Hacker Level 1
Warn Level: 69
| |
spyware wrote:
London is full of CCTV (camera's) which tape everything, always. They use this system to detect and prevent criminal activities.
Is this good? Why?
A lot of areas in Britain have introduced talking cctv, the cameras are constantly monitered, and if anything illegal from litter dropping to rape happens, a person can speak over the radio to the person...
This could be 'Pick up that litter', or informing that they have been recorded, and police are on their way.
I think this is a great thing, it has massivly decreased crime in the area's their being used in...
Some places there should be no privacy, places like towns and clubs.
Anyone should have all the privacy they want in their own homes, but little if any attal is needed when out in public.
Thanks Yours31f!
Make poverty history... Cheaper drugs now! - Frank gallagher
[small][center]Einstein climbs to the top of Mt. Sinai to get close enough to talk to God.
Looking up, he asks the Lord...
"God, what does a million years mean to you?"
The Lord replies, "A minute."
"Einstein asks, "And what does a million pounds mean to you?"
The Lord replies, "A penny."
Einste |
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
rex_mundi
☆ Lucifer ☆
Posts: 2004
Location: Scotland
Joined: 20.02.08
Rank: God | |
Yeah but it doesn't actually stop crime it just pushes it further out where there are no cameras , junkies and muggers still need cash , so they'll just move onto areas where there are no cameras , which eventually , by following your logic will be your house .
So what's next , CCTV in your own home , just so you're sure to be safe ?
For every high profile case on tv where CCTV is used to catch the criminal , there are 1000's of others that were also caught on CCTV , yet no arrests were ever made .
They just trumpet it on tv to make it look like all the surveillance is really keeping us safe , in order to justify introducing more and more cameras in the name of security , as they continue to erode the privacy laws .
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
Member
Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank: Guest | |
well now thats just the very root of the debate here: is privacy a human right or not?
if you think it is, then you'll agree that security should work TOWARDS your privacy not against it.
if you think it isn't i hope you live somewhere far away from me and that you don't vote/run for office.
and while we're on this topic, i think we can all agree a human right applies to all humans across time and they are NOT granted by a government. in that sense, government putting CCTV's inside your homes would be a human rights violation, regardless of any laws they pass allowing it.
anyways, here's my reasoning: you own your property and therefore have exclusive rights over it (nobody can use it without your permission or for things you didn't agree to verbally or by contract) therefore, assuming you didn't allow any person or group of persons (such as those calling themselves The Government) to read your papers, hardrive or whatever privacy is at stake here, they are violating your property rights, in other words, your human right to own property.
it's a pretty simple argument, i hope you can understand it, even if you disagree with it.
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
ynori7
Member
Posts: 1486
Location: #valhalla
Joined: 08.10.07
Rank: God | |
Folk Theory wrote:
well now thats just the very root of the debate here: is privacy a human right or not?
if you think it is, then you'll agree that security should work TOWARDS your privacy not against it.
if you think it isn't i hope you live somewhere far away from me and that you don't vote/run for office.
and while we're on this topic, i think we can all agree a human right applies to all humans across time and they are NOT granted by a government. in that sense, government putting CCTV's inside your homes would be a human rights violation, regardless of any laws they pass allowing it.
I understand what you're saying, but it's not black and white. These issues are always grey areas:
It's wrong to lock up criminals because freedom is a human right.
It's okay to kill people if it makes me happy because the pursuit of happiness is a human right.
There shouldn't be police because they interfere with human nature.
There should be no taxes because it doesn't make me happy to pay them.
The list can go on and on, but these we have elected to have things the way that they are because it's preferable to the alternative. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but: Social Contract.
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
Member
Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank: Guest | |
ynori7 wrote:
1. It's wrong to lock up criminals because freedom is a human right.
2. It's okay to kill people if it makes me happy because the pursuit of happiness is a human right.
3. There shouldn't be police because they interfere with human nature.
4. There should be no taxes because it doesn't make me happy to pay them.
The list can go on and on, but these we have elected to have things the way that they are because it's preferable to the alternative. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but: Social Contract.
1. violence is only justifiable in self-defense. criminals (people who use violence not in self defense) are locked up as a measure of self-defense.
2. killing is a violation of the victim's right to life. you do not have a right to violate someone else's rights
3. you have no right to tell someone wether he can be a policeman or not.
4. then don't pay.
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
ynori7
Member
Posts: 1486
Location: #valhalla
Joined: 08.10.07
Rank: God | |
Folk Theory wrote:
1. violence is only justifiable in self-defense. criminals (people who use violence not in self defense) are locked up as a measure of self-defense.
There! That one right there is my point. Human rights such as privacy and freedom can be taken away as a measure of self-defense and defense of others. If it's okay in that scenario, then why can't it be okay in this one.
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
Member
Posts:
Location:
Joined: 01.01.70
Rank: Guest | |
ynori7 wrote:
There! That one right there is my point. Human rights such as privacy and freedom can be taken away as a measure of self-defense and defense of others. If it's okay in that scenario, then why can't it be okay in this one.
it is. what makes the whole difference is who initiates the violence.
|
|
|
| Author | RE: Privacy vs. Security |
spyware
Member
Posts: 4192
Location:
Joined: 14.04.07
Rank: God
Warn Level: 90
| |
So, who decides what is wrong and right? That is a completely other discussion. What we're trying to figure out is how much security we should sacrifice for privacy, or how much privacy we can trade in for security.
Don't fall for the whole good/bad trap. This discussion wasn't meant to debate over subtleties like what's good and bad.
"The chowner of property." - Zeph [small]�Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term,
but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.� - Carl Sagan [center]�Since the grid is inescapable, what were the earlier lasers about? Does the corridor have a sense of humor?� - Ebert[/ce |
|
|
