This conversation is closed.

What is more important, security or privacty ?

In recent times we have talked a lot about privacy. About the possibility that we may be controlled and thus lose our privacy.
However these measures may be imporantes for our safety. Help in many situations.
After that, I think, what is more important, our security and our privacy?

  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    Jun 22 2013: As long as our 'personalized mobility' is causing more casualties per year than 'acts of terrorism' there is no reason to invade anyones privacy, as there is neither any logical nor legal reason to do so:

    List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year

    Terrorist attacks and related incidents in the United States

    The examples chosen for the USA are exemplary for obvious reasons, yet apply to all EU states as well.

    You don't even have to absorb all data, just pick a view years and compare for yourself and 'rethink' if security is the main motivation compared to the effort and 'investments' put in each field and its resulting consequences.

    As 'motor vehicle deaths' is just one source for security comparison, there are plenty other 'non terrorist' possibilities to choose from.

    By this it may becomes obvious that 'security' is only a matter of perception and comparison, which can be (and is) manipulated via media, whereas 'privacy' is no matter of perception and comparison and should therefore be carefully observed before it is limited or even taken.

    My tipping point for considerations towards a reduction in privacy would therefore be the point both statistics break even in this comparison, provided, that focus, effort and financial resources would have been spent proportional on each subject beforehand.

    Any other claim for more 'security' against terrorism before this point was reached originates from a different agenda, which, per definition, is not a democratic one.

    And yes, those comparisons are valid to make as they justify themselves via the logic of the given subject.
  • Comment deleted

    • Jun 21 2013: Good point of view.
      Privacy is essencial for our security. If we lost our privacy we lose our complete security.
      But in this case when we are talking about securtiy we are talk about the security against terrorism attacks.
  • Jun 20 2013: Well it depends on the risk that we are safed from. In case of the NSA I would rather have more terrorist attacks than than giving the NSA and the Us government the tools to install a dictatorship. Basically the US government can now pick any political movement observe and destroy it. And thats to dangerous for me
    • Jun 21 2013: But this is what you think in this moment. You have said " would rather have more terrorist attacks" but if you lose your friends in attack of terrorism you will not think in your privacy...
      • Jun 21 2013: But it is less likely to die from an terrorist attack than from an car accident and sorry to say but to prohibit a minor threat we give the government the right and the tools to declare me a threat, find all my friends and arrest us, bring us without lawyer and court to prison, torture us until we give false confessions and keep us for a lifetime in prison? I think the end does not justifi the means
        • Jun 21 2013: But we wouldn't have a dictatorship. Now the people have power, how we can see in Brazil the people together is more strong than government. We are in a new era,not in the old era where we are commanded by dictatores. We will not leave our freedom.
      • Jun 21 2013: we would not have a dictatorship, indeed. And i think the American government wants to do the right thing. BUT when there is the possibily of power abuse due to power concentration, there will be this one person that chooses the wrong way. And with this tools he could possibly crash any demonstration like the ones in Turkey and Brazil, before they even arise(its like in Orwells novels). An example for this is the weimar republic, due to mistakes in the design of the constitution, Hindenburg could appoint Hitler Chancellor and Hitler could then suspend the basic human rights and oppress the other parties so that Hitler won the next election and the end of the stories were the darkest 12 years of my countries history. I don´t want that any government makes the same mistake as we did
        • Jun 21 2013: Yes, i understand your fear. This is a radical way to protect people so we don´t accept very well this way, because people have fear,we do not like change our routine. And this is one reason why people are so angry with this situation.
      • Jun 21 2013: I now made relativly clear what my opinion is. I am curious to find out what you point of view is
        • Jun 21 2013: I don´t know and i make this question in TED in order to see the different opinions. I think that we shouldn´t lose our privacy but i think too that this is radical way so I think that have something that we don´t know... i think that USA have made this plan because something are wrong.
  • Jun 24 2013: It has to be both for me. Privacy to me is just keeping something private: between myself and a few people i would share an idea with. BUT what about ideas that intend to harm others? Do i want such ideas to be kept in absolute private? NO.
    Security if applied should be with the intent of privacy. I don't mind the government keeping track of people with terroristic intentions. These people deserve to be monitored. If something bad does happen... expect people to argue for more security regardless of privacy. Take the 9-11 plane attack.... there were reports that knowledge of the incident had circulated within american security agencies but they couldn't act in one way or the other. AFter the attack, the agencies were critisized for not moving fast enough and people felt "lack of security" and they "needed" more security.. this means tracking conversations, movements etc... i find it funny that some americans would support Snowden and his bid for total privacy. If there was total privacy and something bad happens.. well.. you get the idea... it just starts the cycle of people clamoring more security... then more complaints of lack of privacy. So like i said it has to be both... the government can snoop into my connections as long as these are kept private and no body can use that information against me (unless i have widespread damage intentions).
    • Jun 24 2013: That's the same point that i have already said. I agree with you. Our privacy will not be used by others, and we must think in our security, maybe if we had this system in 11 September we had never lose so many of people.
      We need think very well in this question.
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2013: If a system / country ensures full security then will not people of that system need any privacy from each other ?
    Let's think of family in a house , members of the family are not security threat to each other , does it mean they don't need any privacy from each other ?
    • Jun 21 2013: Of course that we need the privacy and security but if NSA continue with his plan we will lose our privacy and you will have more security but in the other hand if NSA doesn´t continue with this plan we have privacy and less security.
  • Jun 21 2013: Id rather have my privacy.
    Technology is so far advanced beyond what you and I believe it to be, we're not being told anything anymore.
    Nothing that happens today is an accident or surprise to them, we see that every time something happens.
    How come the government, police, military, the elite, and their ABC corps can have their privacy, and we can't? We're the ones who aren't the terrorists! We're the good guys. You want privacy taken away, take it away from the people who are being private because they're up to no good.
    • Jun 21 2013: But things aren´t so easy, if they want control us is because they haven´t conditions to find in this moment...
      But of course that we musn´t be controlled.
      • Jun 21 2013: I don't understand how you worded your statement, but people forgot that there's more of us than there are of the elite and government. There's more humane cops who keep into consideration their families are not exempt from such laws, than there are inhumane cops that go around beating and raping people.
        We're supposed to be scared, we're supposed to be frantic, hanging on the government to tell us whats best, what to do next. Us as a whole have become very weak minded to allow it to get this bad.

        Do you know about the transcranial pulsed ultrasounds that are in the works for DARPA? Mind control apparatus to be put in military helmets, and that's labelled as 'for the good of our military' Just like our processed food, fluoride in our water, GM foods, chemtrails, HAARP, oil, harmful vaccinations and medications. all for the betterment of the people. HA!
        • Jun 22 2013: I am not defending the governement, i don´t agree with this plan. I just want to know the opinion of people and your opinion is very clear. We can´t be dominate for other people.
          What you said about the transcranial pulsed ultrasounds i don´t know,this is new for me.
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2013: this question fades away as soon as we stop thinking in a generalized solution. what is better, chocolate or vanilla ice cream? one can debate it all day long, not getting any closer to a solution. but as soon as we realize that it is up to personal preference, and the entire debate does not make sense, it all seems clear and simple. we want both options to be available and we want people to choose for themselves. the same way, some people prefers privacy and security in different combinations. let them choose.
    • Jun 21 2013: But with this question we can see the good and bad points of privacy. This is the objective,you agree with NSA plan ? Why ? Because with this plan we can found a confront with this privacy and security.
      • thumb
        Jun 21 2013: here is a set of things americans could, and should be able to, demand:

        1. i do not want to finance the NSA from my tax dollars
        2. i do not want to grant the government power to coerce cooperation from service providers
        3. i do not want to support NSA-collaborator service providers with my money

        these ought to be personal decisions, so some might agree to that, others not. today, the problem is that they can't make these decisions, except the last one. but even that is unrealistic, since all service providers have to collaborate with the government.
        • Jun 21 2013: So you preferer privacy. That's your point of view, but i know that others persons if could choose, they would choose by security because they have lost friends or family in one terrorism attack. And what i want is a discussion about this.
        • Jun 21 2013: I think that you cannot always leave it up to the persons, because if they could choose what you propose, everybody who wants to start anything that is against the government could do so without being stopped and the NSA would only get innocents. So you either force this programm on everybody (which is problematic) or you don´t monitor at all.
      • thumb
        Jun 21 2013: no, i want that option to be available to the people. if the nsa wants my data, ask me. if i refuse to cooperate, they can put me on suspicious person list, you can publish my name, and the fact that i refused cooperation. then for example an office building can refuse to let me enter, since i'm a potential terrorist. it is up to them, not the nsa.
        • Jun 21 2013: But NSA will not agree with your option. Of course that people who want do a crime wouldn't tell NSA to control his life's... this is will be very stupid.
      • thumb
        Jun 21 2013: it is often the case that i don't agree with someone. it does not allow me to use force to achieve compliance. potential wrongdoers obviously will refuse cooperation. but it will also make them exposed as potential wrongdoers, won't it? provided that the nsa can present its case in a way that people believe.
        • Jun 21 2013: No.... you are a potencial wrongdoers ? I think no,however you want your priacy.
          The NSA want to do this for one reason that the rest of people donˋt no....
  • Comment deleted

    • Jun 21 2013: They have violated your rights for your security. And this security is important. We are just think in this moment, we need think in the future. Maybe, you preferer privacy but the people whose friends have died in Boston,they now think that the most important is security.
      • Jun 21 2013: Who was responsible for the Boston Bombings? What have you been reading in the media who isnt getting paid to lie?
        Why are our rights being taken away and not those responsible for all of these "attacks"?
        WE didn't bomb anything or allow anything to be bombed.
        The government sets all this stuff up, or knows its happening or going to happen and they ignore it.
        I lost people in a number of terrorist attacks, I don't want my privacy taken away, I want the elite's privacy taken away, I want the military, police, congress/cabinet/president, ABC Corp's privacy taken away, i want a governmental and military 24 hour reality show no editing.
        • Jun 21 2013: What i am trying say is that government will not this for nothing!! This must be for your security. But of course that you have the right to opposite.
          Why NSA want to do this ? Do you know?
      • Jun 21 2013: I personally think it has more to do with regulation and intimidation than security.
        Once more laws are signed to take away more rights, and more surveillance is added we will be more submissive to their madness, and those who are not will be making those privatized prisons lots more money.
        People act like rights in this country have never been stripped away before, like people weren't sent to camps and were dehumanized or experimented on without their knowledge and consent. Like it isn't happening right now.
        We have security cameras everywhere, the NSA security tactics are nothing new, they have been doing it for years, they just finally felt like telling us about it, that alone should leave you outraged because not only are you late on being informed about it, keep in consideration how many "attacks" have we had since, what? 2005? Maybe earlier than that...
        When that movie eagle eye was made, shia lebouf confirmed on a talk show that the device in use by our government was not identical to that in the film, but it did exist.