 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Security first.
Things are pretty private about six feet under.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:32
|
|
Kid, come on. That question is all wrong to begin with, and when you put it like that, the game is lost.
Those two shouldn't be overlapping each other. Privacy is security many times. There's no price on privacy, like there is not one on security, but which one can you still get to some extent by yourself? It's not the privacy dude.... that's not so mething YOU can control. Give it up, never get it back. But you can still trust your .357 and tight jeans. When it comes down to it, you are as secure as you are now, but you are never as secure as you think you are meaning you are more secure or less secure, but there's very little you can do about it (except the bottom line, self defense security), it's out of your hands, but if you let the privacy go, hey, .. for what? why? For security? For Nandorlath? For some other weird word? What does it mean.. what's the real life application. Where are the results. What is the threat? .... security... you think you are secure in an airplane? You think you are safe eating expired milk? Sure you are. So... what's on your mind? Terrorists? Commies? Random muggers? And giving up your privacy helps you in this matter exactly HOW? What are the odds? THe only effect you will see is you losing your privacy, period. The two are not matching.
Privacy is part of freedom, and if you lose that, why would you even desire security? IT would protect your.... freedom? Nah you lost it.. your... personal health against attackers? Nah, that's impossible, unless there are thought robots to attack your attackers before they do it.
The lacking security feeling.. is often false. If you want more security, buy a bigger gun. That's the way it is. Always has been, always will be. Nothing to do with privacy. Intelligence info schminfo. BS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:32
|
|
NO! I meant they shouldn't be overlapping  .
Security part of freedom, in my opinion, no. Security is an added bonus, that should be kept minimal but sufficient.
Terrorists don't want your freedom, trust me on this one. And when you think about it, they c an't take your freedom. You are the only one who can take your own freedom. It's ntosomething someone could steal..
Plus, giving privacy away or bits of it won't exactly help to solve that problem, or prevent all attacks, or even majority of them.
If you ask me.. what's it worth.... if there is one attack we can prevent if privacy is taken away to some extent.. what is it worth.. the 100 lives it saved? I don't think so. Take a chance. Ride the bus, ride the train, roid your vains, odds are nothing will happen to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:32
|
|
Privacy until a city gets nuked, then security.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
NO! I meant they shouldn't be overlapping .
Security part of freedom, in my opinion, no. Security is an added bonus, that should be kept minimal but sufficient.
Terrorists don't want your freedom, trust me on this one. And when you think about it, they c an't take your freedom. You are the only one who can take your own freedom. It's ntosomething someone could steal..
Plus, giving privacy away or bits of it won't exactly help to solve that problem, or prevent all attacks, or even majority of them.
If you ask me.. what's it worth.... if there is one attack we can prevent if privacy is taken away to some extent.. what is it worth.. the 100 lives it saved? I don't think so. Take a chance. Ride the bus, ride the train, roid your vains, odds are nothing will happen to you. |
Crap Pekka. You could be the ****ing president with all this freedom this **** and freedom that ****.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Security is not freedom.
I'll use the computer as an analogy.
A secure computer is one that is locked down. The user isn't able to do jack ****, can't install, can't connect to the webternets, but you know what? His data is completely safe. He's secure. Sure, he'll run out of new and interesting things, and he'll stagnate, but at least he's safe.
On the other hand, if someone has privacy, such as an anonymizer, and has taken decent precautions to protect herself, such as a firewall, AV software, and knows that it's bad ****in' idea to go down unlit intarweb alleys, then she deserves all the freedom she can get. If she's got a superfirewall and can defender herself, why not give her the freedom to go completely unregulated to, say, porn sites, or political sites, without being tracked?
Privacy and self-responsibility for personal security. You're plenty secure when you're dead.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Is insecurity freedom? |
In Demolition Man, everybody's safe from dangerous things. There is ever-present security. They're also all completely unfree. They're not oppressed, but the instant they catch a whiff of real freedom, they panic and the security apparatus collapses.
The East German state was a masterwork of security.
===
Insecurity is freedom, yes. Sure, you don't have a freedom from, say, want, but you have the freedom to try to get exactly what you want, rather than what someone else thinks you want.
When you're first tossed out into the world after graduation, you're pretty much insecure. However, you also have the freedom to do whatever the **** you want, be it go on a twenty-year long journey across the world, or to go straight to work at Credit Suisse.
If your future were "secure", you'd already have a career planned out for you. Like all to many other asian ameicans still under the thrall of their parents, I've seen many of them get funnelled into engineering, medicine, or business, whether they liked it or not.
What it boils down to is this:
Security is freedom from fear, but unfreedom from change, adventure, flux, novelties.
Privacy doesn't infringe on c, a, f, or n, and the fact that you get some modicum of control over who knows what about you gives a nice relief from certain aspects of fear.
===
Simply put, I'd rather live in a state where the future constantly keeps me guessing, which in turn drives me alternately towards depression and mania, because it allows me to choose just how vibrant the world can be. It'll afford me the privacy of doing things how I see fit, and if I wish to leave the world and become some hermit in the woods of Idaho, it'll let me.
The alternative, which is a secure world where I know where things come from, what things will happen, and might even have some things set out for me, feels stale. I might as well be dead, since when that happens, I'll also know exactly where I'll be.
===
If that makes any sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
What's the problem with security cams on streets, though? |
I for my part have no problem with them (at least if they aren´t installed in every street but just in crowded streets / places [like the streets/places within the city centres])
as they might really increase security a great deal with just a limited loss to your privacy (after all you are in a public place where, even without cams, your actions could be seen by a lot of other people)
but there seem to be a lot of people for whom even this slight intrusion into their privacy seems to be too much (there are lots of protests every time someone suggests to install cams in german city centres, like they already exist in GB)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2005 01:55
]) and also enable the state to monitor everything you make on your PC (i.e. all PCs are equipped with a mandatory built in keylogger) 
|