TED Conversations

Michael Bradham

This conversation is closed.

Would internet surveillance/privacy issue within US be eased by considering privacy of other nations?

One solution may be to stop feeding internet emotion. Or, stop feeding internet anything you would not want to see on the front page of a popular newspaper.

Concerning United States privacy: how many individuals living in other countries has United States reached out and permanently decreased their daily privacy?
Whose presence decreased their privacy? Was it US government, US citizens, US military, US private companies, US tourism, US medical tourism, US ecotourism?

If a solution is to be found, would it be reasonable to consider weighing human rights within US, against human rights taken from other countries by the US?

Seems human rights taken from others is now coming back to get US. As privacy within US decreases, may be an opportune time to give back human rights/privacy once taken from others. This notion appears to be missing altogether from this situation. It is necessary to give back to others because it may help prevent privacy within US from dropping too low, because if it drops too low within US, whatever that level of privacy is, it may once again be forced onto other nations.

Share:
  • thumb
    Apr 7 2014: This issue is really about the ongoing debacle between safety and privacy.

    The need to be safe created the need to invade other's privacy. In psychology the more you know about someone else, the safer you feel about the person. The US invaded other's privacy for the protection of US citizens as a whole.

    There really is no simple solution. We live in a world where many governments aren't as transparent as the US government. Unfortunately it's not possible to feel "safe" in a world with nuclear weapons without invading other's privacy in a sense. Who knows what dangerous intent other crazy religious or political fanatics have about our world? Can we actually protect privacy and protect our safety in such a world?
    • thumb
      Apr 7 2014: Interesting. Thank you for writing of a big world view. Interesting about psychology of safety and knowing more about others.
      I offer a solution of not feeding internet emotion, because creates many times more information for security organizations to filter through. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf. Maybe cutting down on emotional contributions to internet would lead to less work for security organizations, then maybe less need to force their way into innocent people's lives.
      Presence of US in other nations is not only for protection of US citizens as a whole.

      "Whose presence decreased their privacy? Was it US government, US citizens, US military, US private companies, US tourism, US medical tourism, US ecotourism?"

      In US, lifestyles have led to need for high levels of security and surveillance. If US citizens travel outside US, and bring their lifestyles with them, would they not also create need for higher levels of security and surveillance?

      I think individual actions can help this situation:
      1. Not feeding internet emotion.
      2. Not bringing lifestyle requiring high levels of security and surveillance to other nations.
      Do you agree with these 2 actions?
  • Apr 3 2014: "Mind your own business" Used to be a warning signal, today it appears to be an invitation. That is not a good sign of progress.
    I spent a year in Haleiwa one Halloween night with the braddahs, if you catch my drift.
  • Apr 3 2014: Michael

    I am a little confused with your opening. Are you accusing the US of destroying something called "Human Rights" in other countries? If so, what are those countries and what "Rights" have been destroyed and or taken away? Please be specific, as ambiguities serve no purpose. Do you reference the NSA snooping on governments and their citizens? If so, then please reference other countries that do the same thing.
    If the NSA is your reference then your complaint is legitimate, but do not associate this with America because it is not. America is as much the target, victim of this betrayal, as America was betrayed by Benedict Arnold.

    NSA under the authority of the Obama Administration has seen fit under the pretense of 'National Security' to enter into the homes and general privacy of it's citizens to spy and collect information never justified by a warrant.

    Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

    Your opening may have merit providing you understand what is and is not American. There are ungly Americans, deceitful American bureaucrats and politicians, but like Arnold, they are not America, nor do they represent the ideals of America, as evidenced by their actions.
    • thumb
      Apr 5 2014: I offer a solution of not feeding internet emotion. To stop feeding internet anything that internet user would not want seen on the front page of a daily newspaper. I am curious to others opinions about that.
      Seems many countries influence rights of other nations, now more than ever before. My question pertains to current US situation of internet privacy. While it appears to be an internal struggle, maybe the struggle would be eased by observing privacy changes of other nations, caused by US influence.
      I seen a lot around internet about this internet privacy struggle, but not much concerning weighing privacy within US, against privacy changes in other nations caused by US influence.
      • Apr 5 2014: Michael

        I am slowly being convinced that privacy, in our modern world, is as much an illusion, as democracy is freedom.The US is doing nothing that other government would not do, providing they had the money and talent. This is the nature of government. Its primary function is to protect itself, to expand and to control. It will use whatever excuse necessary, whatever the people will believe on a temporary basis until such time that it no longer matters what the people want or believe. We have arrived at that time.
        Government and religion have a great deal in common, in that both strive for omnipotence. It is their nature. A beast who needs to eat.
        Government is like a trustworthy servant who will, as you leave the house to work, steel what you have.