7 ms·
"It’s precisely to protect the rights of cartoonists like Charlie Hebdo’s that governments deploy surveillance against potential terrorists." This would be gre
by herbig 11y ago
"It’s precisely to protect the rights of cartoonists like Charlie Hebdo’s that governments deploy surveillance against potential terrorists."
This would be great if governments were surveilling only terrorists, instead of literally everyone, including their own citizens.
The article makes not justification for its title "the false trade-off betweent security and liberty." It only says it's ok because we don't hear about the attacks that are prevented. That's not good enough.
- slasaus 11y ago> The article makes not justification for its title "the false trade-off betweent security and liberty." I think they make their point in the end: > In the immediate circumstances, liberty and security can require trade-offs. But from any longer perspective, security is the basis and foundation of liberty—a truth eloquently stated by another American president, Franklin Roosevelt, when he inscribed freedom from fear alongside freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and freedom from want in his great “Four Freedoms” speech of January 1941. I think some sense of security is needed in order to fully exploit the creative and innovative properties of liberty. In other words, just as much as the Panopticon effect hurts freedom, experimenting and developing new ideas— insecurity can hurt these properties as well so I do think it's a trade-off.