Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

security vs. privacy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • security vs. privacy

    How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice for security?
    26
    Face recognition software at public events
    11.54%
    3
    ID card w/ personal info
    11.54%
    3
    Hand search of luggage & more questioning
    7.69%
    2
    all of the above
    19.23%
    5
    No security is worth sacrificing privacy
    50.00%
    13

  • #2
    How does facial recognition software in public places violate *privacy*? Sure, there are a lot of issues with the implementation; I won't debate that. But if you are walking around in public, its not a privacy violation that people (or cameras) can see you. That's just common sense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well, I guess that is not technically privacy, but it is a big-brother type system by the government, and any big-brother type system invades privacy. I guess, one's location should be something private, unless they are in a public area, and even then...
      Well, its just scary. The government should not be able to know wherever you are. I consider that somewhat privacy.

      Comment


      • #4
        The book "Database Nation" creates a pretty scary picture of how over time almost all databases are full of bad information, mismanaged, and a select group of people can add and removed data.

        Scanning for bad guys is not evil. But it is once people start using it for other purposes. I bet peoples driver license pictures get entered, and now it is tracking them. You see how the Social Security employees have sold information for creating fake identities and fraud, imagine what the insiders will do with the facial database.
        PGP key: dtangent@defcon.org valid 2020 Jan 15, to 2024 Jan 01 Fingerprint: BC5B CD9A C609 1B6B CD81 9636 D7C6 E96C FE66 156A

        Comment


        • #5
          The truth about the allusions you make to 1984 and the talk that big brother is here is that it's true.
          Name a public place (or even most private business places) you can go into that does not have a camera that monitors your every move. (Big Brother)
          Name a period of time (in the last 60 years) that america has not be directly or indirectly involved in a war or conflict. (the constant war with Eurasia or Eastasia)
          Name a period of time in the last 20+ years when the media has told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unaltered and unadulterated. (The Ministry of Truth)
          In my opinion, the masses kid themselves if they believe anything else and are just good victims fo the party line.

          Am I wrong?
          -- jedi

          Comment


          • #6
            To a certain degree, you're right. But as I've been saying for years, and has been recently made painfully obvious after September, the government doesn't have the resources to actually track everyone's every move. There is too much information being interpreted by not enough people.

            I don't know what the numbers are these days, but 10 years ago, there were only 23000 employees of the FBI; half of which were in clerical positions. 13000 people can *not* constantly monitor a few billion.

            Of course, this doesn't stop them from recording all that information for later access in case your name comes across their desk (as has also, been demonstrated recently).

            Don't ask me what my point is... I don't really know. Electrocution, sleep deprivation, stimulants and depressants don't usually mix well to produce a clear train of thought.

            Comment


            • #7
              Big Brother is already here

              There is no avoiding Big Brother, you're always going to be monitored, whether or not you want it. The only privacy you have is your own head, everything else is subject to investigation. Of course a lot of surviellence requires a warrant, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be used anyway.
              I have no objections to increased security in certain places, but everything has to be case by case, not a blanket ruling. For example, increased security at airports, train and bus stations and government facillities. No problem. Icreased security at conventions and stadiums, maybe at the ground level, but certainly no fingerprinting or x-rays.
              Does the government have a right to watch you? It depends, it's always a gray area, but espesialy now. But I think that we should first focus on fixing airport security (Federal agents got through airport security 2/3 of the time with a gun) before we look elsewhere.
              "If common sense is so common, why do so few people have it?"

              "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistant one."

              LONG LIVE NEXTECH!

              Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad! Mantras are bad!

              Comment


              • #8
                Of course we will *always* be monitored, but does that legitimize us for not standing up for our liberty?

                I should hope not.

                "It is dangerous to be right, when the government is wrong." --Voltaire
                "I'm not a robot like you. I don't like having disks crammed into me... unless they're Oreos, and then only in the mouth."

                Comment


                • #9
                  "We" decide

                  (Ironic--I posted a large reply about privacy in the "cashless society" thread--I didn't realize this thread was here) :)

                  Well, the fact is that "we" decide how much monitoring and privacy reduction we'll allow. The problem is that "we" means the people of the US (or any other country) as a whole, and the vast majority of people are relatively ignorant of the implications and have simple, knee-jerk reactions to violent events ("someone was shot?!? OUTLAW GUNS!!") rather than taking the time to learn what is going on and think of an appropriate response. The majority of people are willing to trade off any amount of civil liberties in order to feel more secure, even though that security will always be an illusion.
                  The fact is we can NOT prevent a dedicated person or group from doing us harm indefinitely. Sure, we can make it a bit harder. And having at least basic security measures in place means that ONLY a dedicated person or group will be able to accomplish something, so some security is definitely a good thing. But so many people seem to believe that if only we try harder, if only we allow to government free reign to protect us, that we'll be "safe". This simply won't happen.. It's long been a maxim (and worst fear) of the Secret Service that any reasonably intelligent person who is willing to trade his life for the President's will be able to do so, and I think we'd all agree the President has more extraordinary security measures protecting him than we can ever expect for ourselves. We can't even stop the importation of thousands of tons of drugs each year, despite massive efforts to do so.
                  What we are doing is allowing the terrorists to win. Their goal was NOT to kill a few thousand people. Their goal was to scare Americans, and to cause fundamental changes in our society. They succeeded incredibly well. If you haven't seen the movie "The Siege", I highly recommend it. It's disturbing just how similar our real life responses have been to those in the movie.
                  Restricting the lives of ALL of our citizens in an attempt to prevent terrorism is futile--no security measure will ever be foolproof, so dedicated terrorists will still find a way around it, and in the meantime the rest of us will get to live in a police state (a la "1984" or "THX-1135").

                  "Those who would give up essential freedoms for security,
                  deserve neither freedom nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
                  "The truth must be told though the world crumble" -- Fichte

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    the most fundamental function of a government is to protect its citizens. a government that cannot accomplish loses its legitimacy and is in short lifeterm. how that is accomplished is highly subjective to each government, as is the rational for means and the propaganda that helps communite these explanations.

                    hehe what's more interesting is that my reply to your last cashless post echoes a lot of the sentiments you put out in this thread.

                    our interesting government allows the people to vote on who will decide the means that we are kept secure, or perceive that we are safe for the matter. often the perception is all that really exists, because of it's faster political rewards... any hope is that those involved are educated enough to tackle the proper means to really keep its citizens safe (namely, my geek ass). I would assert that we (in general) really don't know of the means being used to protect the country, outside of what the daily circus freaks chew up and spoon feed the public.
                    if it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud; and I'm gonna go there free.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree with your assertion, but..

                      Oh I definitely agree that there are many, MANY actions taken by our government to help protect the citizens and interests of this country that we never hear about.. I also think that we should NOT necessarily be told what all of those actions are--often it's necessary to maintain secrecy in order to ensure the success of those actions. I have no problem whatsoever with not being told everything the government is doing--I DO, however, have a problem with the erosion of civil liberties in support of those efforts. One of the things that I believe has made this such a great country to live in is the very rights that are now slowly, incrementally being sacrificed for the illusion (and to be honest, in some cases the actuality) of increased security.
                      What I find interesting is that if you ask nearly any person in this country if they want to live in a tightly controlled and monitored society with the government tracking every move and transaction they engage in, those people will firmly say they do NOT want to live in such a country. Yet if you slowly introduce a series of small changes over a period of many years that end in the same situation, with a variety of justifications along the way as to why a particular step is necessary (usually involving rhetoric along the lines of "help save our CHILDREN!"), people will approve of those individual changes, mostly without realizing the cumulative effect they're having.
                      You're correct that ONE of the functions of our government is to protect our citizens. However, that does not imply that we should allow them to use any means necessary. We'd all be MUCH safer if everyone were confined to individual cages for their entire lives, but I doubt anyone would see this as an optimal solution to our problems. Our government needs to protect us, but it must also preserve our civil liberties and rights, so the two must be balanced. Any government, if unchecked, would of course seek to maximize the amount of information and control that it has on its citizens. That's exactly WHY checks and balances such as the Constitution and the court system were put in place.
                      I'm just disappointed to see how much things have changed in the last, say, 20 years. And I see no end in sight to the process, so in another 20 years who knows where we'll be?
                      "The truth must be told though the world crumble" -- Fichte

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        aaahhh, the frog in the frying pan.... that's true about almost anything.

                        I believe the civil liberties you cherish to be more of an illusion than most are willing to admit. If I wave a pork chop in front of someone, saying umm look at what you've got.. then snap it away because I'm hungry and want to eat it, did you every really have the pork chop? True freedom is an anarchy that most couldn't handle. After all it's my right to say what I want... No, it's my right to not be offended...
                        if it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud; and I'm gonna go there free.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well...

                          But if you've allowed them to actually eat the pork chop for the last 100 years, THEN take it away, then they're actually losing something...


                          I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
                          - Voltaire
                          "The truth must be told though the world crumble" -- Fichte

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            hmmm... quantifying freedom with the pork chop wasn't quite the intention I had; although rather tasty :D

                            I have a difficult time seeing freedom as something one has, then loses. As opposed to a lack of interference for the time being, until the government needs to change "freedom" to accomodate the functions it must convey, or enhance its self image.

                            Please don't get me wrong. I would, as my relatives and ancestors, fight to keep my country in tact; a country that provides the box of civil liberties that have spoiled me since birth. I don't feel it is within my expectations for things to remain the same forever, nor within the power of citizens to alter the vision of liberties that we are provided.
                            if it gets me nowhere, I'll go there proud; and I'm gonna go there free.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm not sure it matters which way you look at it...

                              Increased monitoring/interference = decreased freedom.
                              "The truth must be told though the world crumble" -- Fichte

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X