PRIVACY vs SECURITY
Jan. 31st, 2008 10:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM [via Schneier]: In a Jan. 21 New Yorker article, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell discusses a proposed plan to monitor all Internet communications for security purposes.
Not some. ALL.
Which is nothing new, but the revealing quote from Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, is this:
“Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.”
In other words, in the eyes of the NSA (and the current presidential admin, and probably others before it), you can be secure against terrorism, or you can have yr privacy respected. You can’t have both.
Cue brilliant essay from Bruce Schneier on why this is a false choice.
Tell yr friends. If you dare.
Gimme some liberty,
This is dF
Not some. ALL.
Which is nothing new, but the revealing quote from Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, is this:
“Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.”
In other words, in the eyes of the NSA (and the current presidential admin, and probably others before it), you can be secure against terrorism, or you can have yr privacy respected. You can’t have both.
Cue brilliant essay from Bruce Schneier on why this is a false choice.
If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
Tell yr friends. If you dare.
Gimme some liberty,
This is dF
