Privacy vs. Security
What is more important, online privacy or making the internet a safer place to be? If privacy and anonymity were to be removed, malicious hackers would be much more reluctant to try anything because catching them would be far easier. People are more prone to follow the rules if there is a real fear of being caught. Removing their protective shield of anonymity would effectively cripple online crimes and make the internet a safer place for everyone. If you were to hire someone to do something illegal, what would be easier- finding them online with a fake identity or actually meeting in person? The fact that people can remain hidden behind their computer causes crime in the 'real world,' as well. Not only would crime decrease, but so would the number of useless trolls who go around wasting time and insulting people based on the fact that no one knows who they are.
On the other hand, removing privacy to increase security would mean that the government has more control over us than we would like to believe. Our moves would be traced and finding people would be far too easy. Since everyone would be scared of the government, they would be scared to voice their opinions. Free speech would, once again, be quashed in favor of 'protecting' people. Not only that, but people would be less honest and reluctant to really tell others how they feel, much like conversations are in the 'real world.'
So there you go, an effective start to both sides of the argument. What is more important, allowing you to retain your privacy by hiding behind a fake name, or the security of the general public? I know most of you will tend to lean towards the 'privacy' side of the argument, but try to see the other sides' thoughts. Realize that right now the internet is not a safe place to be and that everything you do has the potential that someone is going to take advantage of their anonymity and attack you. Remember, if you make a moronic remark, expect to have your reply removed and some warn point shot your way. If you don't like how this was done, voice your opinion in the 'Rules' thread.
Game On
Futility wrote: On the other hand, removing privacy to increase security would mean that the government has more control over us than we would like to believe.
One could easily argue that this statement is already true.
The way I see it, is that I dont have any thing to hide. I'd much rather have the government reading my emails than some random asshole who wants to destroy my computer just for kicks and giggles. It seems to me that anyone who fears such a loss of privacy is likely the kind of person who this security increase is targeting.
Futility wrote: Not only that, but people would be less honest and reluctant to really tell others how they feel, much like conversations are in the 'real world.'
You say that like it's a bad thing. That fear of what others will think of you keeps people in check and prevents then (often, not always) from saying something stupid. I think that the lack of such need to think before speaking is part of the reason we end up with so much flaming in forums like this.
It is my opinion that removing anonymity from the internet would not stop computer crime. Imagine if it were easy to deduce your geographical location from your IP. information would be gleaned from the internet and used in fraud (in real life, not on the internet). For example, it would still be possible to obtain your IP address relatively easily without obviously breaking the law, then you could potentially have someone's home address, which contains useful information for filling out 'forgot your password' forms, such as their postcode. Or your current location if you are accessing the internet from a hotspot. Its not unlikely that criminals would turn to this kind of activity if web hacking became too dangerous.
Anonymity can be a very useful thing, an example I find particularly appropriate is alerting webmasters to vulnerabilities in their sites. I have had to do this before, and, as I was not sure if this would go down well, I did it anonymously. Nobody contacted me, but the site was fixed shortly after, and while I don't know if the admin was happy or not about it, anonymity gave me the confidence to report my findings. Without this I would not have done so for fear of a bad reaction, and I feel this is not an uncommon dilemma amongst white/grey hat hackers.
For these reasons, I am in favor of retaining privacy on the internet, and continuing to battle for more security (DNSSEC, PGP, and more secure code for web 2.0 apps) to try and reach an ideal where the internet is a safe place to be again.
jjbutler88 wrote: It is my opinion that removing anonymity from the internet would not stop computer crime. Of course not. Nothing will ever 'stop' crime of any sort, but even if this just reduces the internet crime rate by 25% that's a major improvement.
jjbutler88 wrote: Anonymity can be a very useful thing, an example I find particularly appropriate is alerting webmasters to vulnerabilities in their sites. I have had to do this before, and, as I was not sure if this would go down well, I did it anonymously. Nobody contacted me, but the site was fixed shortly after, and while I don't know if the admin was happy or not about it, anonymity gave me the confidence to report my findings. Without this I would not have done so for fear of a bad reaction, and I feel this is not an uncommon dilemma amongst white/grey hat hackers. You have a valid point there, but it's not completely thought through. Consider this: I see you walking down the street, so I run up to you and rob you. You can see my face, and I'm even wearing a name tag, but that name means nothing to you. Even though the real world lack anonymity, it doesn't mean everyone knows who you are. The admins of some site wouldn't necessarily know you. It's the government who would have this information.
Agreed, but the less information about you that is known to the person you are 'hiding from' (for whatever reason), the more effectively you have hidden. For example knowing my real email address could allow you to google and find another forum I might visit, which I may have been less paranoid when entering my details, and even someone with no clue about computer forensics can soon build up enough information about you to submit along with logs to the authorities.
moshbat wrote: It would merely be a deterrent, not a fix.
Sure, but what law isn't? Just because it's illegal for me to own an assault rifle doesn't mean I couldn't waltz around town with an ak-47 if I knew how to obtain one.
This would prevent a lot of the little skids from causing trouble so the police (or whatever you want to call them) can focus on the real hackers and not have to sift through trash.
ynori7 wrote: The way I see it, is that I dont have any thing to hide..
NO!
NO, NO, NO!
Not this argument. I really have to stress this point; you -do- have things to hide. Sure, you trust your current government. Sure, you do trust the current force of law.
In just a matter of years, 4, 8, new power will arise. Who's to say your country isn't overrun by terrorists and taken over? Who's to say you never have to revolute, you never have to struggle to survive?
You NEED privacy. You NEED to be able to hide things. Always.
jjbutler88 It is my opinion that removing anonymity from the internet would not stop computer crime.
This. It would probably just encourage identity theft, regular theft or internet tapping.
Edit: The terrorist thing was merely an example, and only that.
spyware wrote: I really have to stress this point; you -do- have things to hide.
Yes, let me rephrase: I don't have anything to hide that can be found on the internet. That of mine which I truly wish to hide is hidden internally.
spyware wrote: In just a matter of years, 4, 8, new power will arise. Who's to say your country isn't overrun by terrorists and taken over? Who's to say you never have to revolute, you never have to struggle to survive?
If my government is taken over by terrorists, I highly doubt privacy will have long to live. I don't see where you're going with this argument.
**ynori7 wrote:**If my government is taken over by terrorists, I highly doubt privacy will have long to live. I don't see where you're going with this argument.
What I'm trying to make clear is that you do need privacy. Even if you, now, have "nothing to hide". Would you like it if your postman read all your bills, letters and whatnot?
Not only is privacy a way of protecting yourself, it's also a way of protecting us, from each other. It's a shield. We need it.
**ynori7 wrote:**Would I like it? No. But if it would help deter crime then I'd be willing to accept it. That's the social contract.
Making everything open to read only will heighten the crime rates. Mailing bank account stuff? Not safe. Mailing about locations of valuable things? Not safe. Mailing about assassinating the leader of a criminal, corrupt and cruel government? You, are, not, safe.
Not ever!
Think about it, when you give privacy away, you'll immediately notice why it was there in the first place. Chaos will emerge after abandoning it. I'm talking about theft, murder and corruption. Those things will happen when you take away privacy. Bad things.
First off, we're not talking about making every detail available to anyone who wants to know. The information is only open to a limited group (police, government, etc.).
Also, we're not talking about completely eliminating all forms of privacy, we're talking about the internet. People survived for quite a long time before the internet was around, and if they lose their internet anonymity it will not mean chaos and destruction.
ynori7 wrote: First off, we're not talking about making every detail available to anyone who wants to know. The information is only open to a limited group (police, government, etc.).
I've never seen a police force I completely trust. Same goes for government. Sure, the intentions of most people who work there are pure, I just don't trust all of them. Mainly the ones with the most power tend to crook a little bit. I'm with John Dalberg-Acton on this one.
ynori7 wrote: Also, we're not talking about completely eliminating all forms of privacy, we're talking about the internet. People survived for quite a long time before the internet was around, and if they lose their internet anonymity it will not mean chaos and destruction.
You're quite right about this. If internet isn't safe (any more), (some) people will probably start using either old-school or new-school stuff. They'll (re-)invent communication methods.
It's all about the balance, there are people on each side and every point inbetween on this argument.
I personally, would vote 100% privacy, though since I really don't do anything illegal online the second wouldn't be a disaster that would immediately lead to my arrest… That said, I fucking hate my 'nanny state', political correctness and the 'big brother' government.
It is true that 100% online moderation could massively decrease crime, but it would also destroy every feeling of privacy you have online, from personal emails, to what sites you visit, the thought of this seriously sends a shiver deep down my spine. I am aware that the government knows more about us than I dare imagine, they know things about us that they won't admit, things that could not be used in courts, information that is only dealt with behind closed doors. If they where to gain power to that degree of publicly aware moderation, to be able to use and incriminate/fine millions of people for fucking petty stuff, it would destroy the Internet as we know it, so much would change, no one would download copyrighted stuff, many would be ashamed to view porn, and billions of sites would surly die…
Also this would doubtfully be a cure… With the millions of computer educated people, all unable to do as we did, do you expect us to all accept that? If not anarchy, people would find a way to a means of Internet, it wouldn't take long for underground Internet to form, people would still find away to file share and communicate privatively, the government could not stop people putting together and linking their own computers, this would spread, 'under the scope' sites would be created this way, particularly for the more notorious things…
The moderation of the Internet by our governments will never decrease, but we are as secure and private as we want to be… If you want 100% online anonymity, you can have it, if you know how. It all depends what your using the Internet for I guess… ;)
EDIT typo
The ideology remains the same for hiding things. You have things at home you intend to hide, and if you intend to hide them on your personal computer but theoretically can't do to foreign action, meaning not yours, then it doesn't seem right. In fact it seems wrong. Privacy is a key thing of your personal life. Anonymity… Not so much because as states by Ynori, the ones trying to hide are most likely the ones who would be targeted. However… As Spyware stated, they are <b>NEEDED</b> due to terrorist action, very true. And our government is so fucked up that it makes Brittany Spears look good.. Even when she was bald. Moreover, we have people like you, Spyware, who just have a natural "nack" for this kind of stuff. I personally would look towards the intellectual persons like yourself to fix the government. I am unsure what would need to happen but I know your the people to make it happen though. I got to go for now though, later guys.
moshbat wrote: [quote]shadowls wrote: I think security is more important, if you can prevent someone from breeching into your website or anyweb site to hijack personal information, then that will not be a problem for privacy. You can never fully secure anything. There will always be something that is insecure… Although, in theory it's possible to fully secure something, I have never seen it.[/quote]
But if my theory is right, then all you have to do is try to keep something secure and there will be not be any problem with privacy.
Don't get me wrong but, you are absolutely right. Nothing can be completely secure but you can always try to keep a website secure as much as you can. That will make it less likely that your site will be penetrated and that will prevent people from steeling people information. The least you can do is try.
rex_mundi wrote: Ok so picture the scene …..a cheap affordable place you can visit at almost anytime of the day , to talk with friends or even meet with strangers , easily accessible by the majority of the masses , where anyone can go and listen to music , read books, play games , discuss politics and share ideas , opinions or information .
A concept apparently so dangerous to the ruling elite , that they decide they have to know everything that's being said and shared by the people visiting these places .
So the government commissions networks of spies etc , to infiltrate and monitor the conversations of their subjects , and attempt to restrict the open sharing of such information and ideas by the introduction of new laws and legislation .
So let's put this in it's proper historical context :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffeehouse#History
As you see , this debate is neither new , nor modern , in reality , it is not even about 'privacy' or 'security' ……. it is about CONTROL , as it always has been .
Exactly, witch is what i have been trying to say but not in the same exact words.
Privacy vs. Security:
I agree that Both are needed in the world we live in. We need a fair balance between the two. Privacy is needed to keep your own information as your own. If privacy were not an issue than the internet would not be anonymous (or so people say). Security is also needed because without security the privacy would be nothing since people would be able to access any information they wanted to.
I would have to say that security is more important though. Here is my reasoning. With Privacy you are stating that you have things to hide (which everyone does). These do not need to be things that are obtainable on the internet right now, rather more personal things like salary, social insurance number, etc… This is where privacy stands. Without it you are not going to be able to hide anything, what will come is lack of security through lack of privacy. So without the Privacy factor you cannot have security. Though this will be equally arguable in the other direction that without security you cannot have privacy I have made my points.
Please chip in your thoughts on this. I thought we wanted to make this into a debate not a "yes"/"no" scene.
<sidenote> Also please note that unless you are masking your IP your location is easily obtained through tracking software that government bodies use. People can obtain your house address (or city block at least) with your IP as the ISP companies need to assign your location that way. If you are on Dynamic it only makes it slightly less simple. Remember, the ISP has all logs of where you live and what your MAC is. So through your ISP you are traceable no matter what you think. </sidenote>
AldarHawk wrote: Privacy vs. Security:
I agree that Both are needed in the world we live in. We need a fair balance between the two. Privacy is needed to keep your own information as your own. If privacy were not an issue than the internet would not be anonymous (or so people say). Security is also needed because without security the privacy would be nothing since people would be able to access any information they wanted to.
I would have to say that security is more important though. Here is my reasoning. With Privacy you are stating that you have things to hide (which everyone does). These do not need to be things that are obtainable on the internet right now, rather more personal things like salary, social insurance number, etc… This is where privacy stands. Without it you are not going to be able to hide anything, what will come is lack of security through lack of privacy. So without the Privacy factor you cannot have security. Though this will be equally arguable in the other direction that without security you cannot have privacy I have made my points.
Please chip in your thoughts on this. I thought we wanted to make this into a debate not a "yes"/"no" scene.
<sidenote> Also please note that unless you are masking your IP your location is easily obtained through tracking software that government bodies use. People can obtain your house address (or city block at least) with your IP as the ISP companies need to assign your location that way. If you are on Dynamic it only makes it slightly less simple. Remember, the ISP has all logs of where you live and what your MAC is. So through your ISP you are traceable no matter what you think. </sidenote>
Your logic makes total sense. We are all human so we all want stuff we don't have. So i guess i have to change my mind on what i think. due to the fact that if you have important information people will always want it. but if you a stable security, you can prevent identity lost.
Hey guys, long time no see.
I side 1000% with Spyware in that I believe privacy matters more. You do not want all of the information that you have available because you do not know what can be done with it, apart from the obvious SE'ing passwords and impersonation. By being cyber savvy, one can reduce their chances by being a smaller target. One thing that people don't take into account is that the internet was made for the easy transfer of information. Anything that you put on there can be read by anyone at anytime anywhere. There is something on the web that you do want to hide, and if it is nobody's business but a certain party, ten the information should only be accessible by that certain party.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin
Pwnzall wrote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin
Well, if we're going to be bringing old dead guys into this then here's my retort.
The idea of the Social Contract was developed a long time ago and has been built upon quite a bit over the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract says: Social contract describes a broad class of republican theories whose subjects are implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order. The names Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke might come to mind to any of you who may be well educated in the humanities area. The two of them were very well known political philosophers in the 1700's, but the Social Contract is an idea that dates back even as far as Plato: "Under a theory first articulated by Plato in his Socratic dialog Crito, members within a society implicitly agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society."
Most societies today have a form of Social Contract. Take the United States for example. We have our Bill of Rights and Constitution and such, but the government has the power to invade our privacy with a warrant (and sometimes without) and they have the power to break up crowds of people if it seems there may be a danger of riot. They can make laws telling us we can't speed and steal and so on. Your Benjamin Franklin quote is worthless because he himself was part of a republic with a Social Contract and in fact he helped write the Constitution.
This philosophy makes sense and it works. I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of privacy on the internet (which is not where life takes place) to the people I pay taxes to if it means I'm a bit less likely to be attacked by hackers, phished, email spammed, etc.
I have stated my point many times so far, but if you want me to elaborate on it more then i will. I am saying that we need a balance of both. YOu cannot get one without the other. For example. Does it take 1 person to start a fight? no you need a 2 or more people to start a fight. The same concept applies to this topic.
richohealey wrote: Like all things it's a case of balance, particularly because there's no chance of one without the other. I stand on the horses for courses side of the fence.
Completely offtopic: Ynori7, hellsing is fucken win.
Witch was my point. In the world we live in. People will always want something they cannot get. and try to see things they cannot see.
richohealey wrote: Like all things it's a case of balance, particularly because there's no chance of one without the other. I stand on the horses for courses side of the fence.
You may stand on both sides of the fence Richo, but in all things one of these two is slightly stonger of a compulsion to you. I know for a fact that I prefer the security side of things because without it the privacy would be lacking. But again this will be a argument that will be won by a few people arguing each point, not just one person on each side with people saying "Yeah that is what I think too!"
We need people to put in some good contributions on this subject. So please, step forth and state your thoughts. No flaming if you can state your argument clearly and that it is well thought out. So lets get more people in on this.
I feel like singing the following with a beautiful melody, maybe even scream it at the top of my lungs, but since neither one can be conveyed through this medium, i will contend with typing it in full caps: FALSE DICHOTOMY
well, that felt great. yes indeed, it is not security vs. privacy at all, rather security AND privacy. why settle for just one when we clearly need and desire both? a system that claims to protect you while taking away your privacy is not securing you at all, rather it is leaving you wide open.
anyways, i hope you guys can understand this. i'll leave you with a quote from benjamin franklin who was fucking rad: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" yes, its not as eloquent as they usually misquote him, but its more straight to the point, and its an actual quote.
Folk Theory wrote: I feel like singing the following with a beautiful melody, maybe even scream it at the top of my lungs, but since neither one can be conveyed through this medium, i will contend with typing it in full caps: FALSE DICHOTOMY
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.
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 =(
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.
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.
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
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.
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 :)
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.
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 .
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.
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.
ynori7 wrote:
- 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.
- 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.
- killing is a violation of the victim's right to life. you do not have a right to violate someone else's rights
- you have no right to tell someone wether he can be a policeman or not.
- then don't pay.
Folk Theory wrote:
- 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.
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.
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.