14 ms·

To sum up how I feel: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----------------

To sum up how I feel: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --------------------------- "The San Bernardino litigation was necessary, but in my view, it was also counterproductive," Comey said during his 20-minute speech. "It was necessary because we had to get into that phone. It was counterproductive because it made it very hard to have a complex conversation." No.. you pushed for the conversation right after the terrorist shooting hoping the public would be scared enough to cave.

rayiner 10y ago
While I'm sympathetic to your point, that quote is always taken out of context: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous... > He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. > It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
- erdevs 10y ago
  Thanks for the information and it's always good to have context. I was going to say that the original meaning doesn't take anything away from the quote as currently used and the power of that meaning. But Wittes already said that too, in the article you linked: > "... maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties." I also disagree with Wittes that this means "not quite the opposite... but closer to the opposite [than the usual usage today]." Franklin was arguing that the state ought to have the right to tax in order to defend the territory on the public's behalf. The Penns were trying to offer a one-time fee in exchange for not being taxed going forward. Thus, Franklin's implication seems to be: do not trade temporary security in exchange for long-term liberty. And so, I think the quote's modern usage and its originally intended meaning are very much in alignment. Just as the Penns offered a short-term benefit to security in exchange for a longer-term loss to prospective liberty, the FBI here is offering a short-term benefit (of debatable potential) to security by disallowing encryption or having master keys/backdoors, in exchange for a longer-term loss to prospective liberty. It seems to me Wittes (and the NPR reporting) just isn't thinking about it deeply enough. It's not as simple as "oh, Franklin was original discussing a security matter and arguing for the state to provide security"... in fact, it is more nuanced and Franklin was saying that the state (and the public) should not accept, let alone advocate for, short-term security at the cost of long-term liberty and security.
  - krapp 10y ago
    The problem with using that quote is that it's usually employed as an argument from authority, implying that Ben Franklin was explicitly warning that personal liberty and government force were mutually opposed, when he actually wasn't. Its modern use comes dangerously close to being propaganda.
    - erdevs 10y ago
      I have never taken this quote to mean that "personal liberty and government force were mutually opposed", per se. Instead, it's meaning seems clear to me as such: don't trade short-term security/safety in exchange for a long-term decrease in liberty. That seems to align with both the original meaning and the modern usage (despite NPR's reporting, which perhaps presents a false dichotomy).
  - will_brown 10y ago
    Is maintaining smart phone encryption after the commission of a crime, when the Gov. otherwise has a lawful right to search and seize evidence used in the commission of a crime an essential liberty? There is another famous quote from John Stuart Mill, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." For example, take the Constitutional Right to bear arms. Obviously we have limited individual liberty to bear arms for safety through both regulations and criminal statutes. I think that trade off can be pretty reasonable in some instances (say, no guns at the airport/on a plane) and since I don't mind sacrificing a little liberty for safety I don't think that trade off makes me undeserving of either liberty of safety, does it? Please note, I am not trying to take a position other than public awareness and conversation about these things is always good; whereas, quotes about not deserving liberty or safety only serve censor an open conversation from a position of moral authority.
    - erdevs 10y ago
      > Please note, I am not trying to take a position other than public awareness and conversation about these things is always good; whereas, quotes about not deserving liberty or safety only serve censor an open conversation from a position of moral authority. I agree with you fully, there. And I'm not a personal advocate of such quotes per se (though I note their power, as you do as well). I was simply arguing that it may be a false dichotomy to claim that the original meaning of the quote is "nearer the opposite" of it's current usage. Oversimplifying matters and creating false dichotomies also "serve [to] censor an open conversation" through logical fallacy and through historical authority, in this case. I think Franklin's quote is bombastic for dramatic effect, and that has its pluses and minuses. I think the real meaning is fairly simple and worthy of consideration, though: be very careful about trading short-term security at the cost of long-term freedom/liberty. In consideration of that point, there is a meaningful debate here. We should examine whether backdoors or other means of foiling encryption would actually provide a net increase to security in practice, or whether they might have no real effect or even decrease security. If we believe means of foiling encryption actually increase security overall in practice, then we would have to debate the tradeoffs to freedom/liberty, the potential for governmental abuse, etc. Given the government's track record of dramatic overreaching in the name of "security", I'm personally hesitant to take any of this lightly.
- erdevs 10y ago
  While we are discussing context, it is also good to consider your sources. The person quoted by NPR may have an agenda; consider the below. It should well be noted that Benjamin Wittes, the person quoted in parent by NPR, is a noted proponent of increased national security at the cost of encryption.[1][2][3] While he is a Fellow at the Brookings Institute, which is generally considered non-partisan but liberal-leaning, Wittes and Brookings' stance on matters of national security have been quite pro-government / pro-"security", and he is also a member of the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law. The Hoover Institution is generally regarded as right-leaning[4][5]. His positions are consistently in line with the FBI's, believing that end-to-end encryption with no backdoor is bad for national security and worth the tradeoff. [1]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-living-will-think-you-drink-kool-aid https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-living-will-think-you... , [2]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-question-apple-hr https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-question-apple-hr [3]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-definition-digital-age-chutzpah https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-definition-digital-age-chut... [4]: http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0327/032756.html http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0327/032756.html , [5]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hoover-Institution-on-War-Revolution-and-Peace https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hoover-Institution-on-War-R...
kobayashi 10y ago
To be clear, that quote regarding liberty and safety has been taken completely out of context. Benjamin Franklin was not saying what you think he was saying. Please read the articles listed below. For the record: I'm am a privacy advocate, but I really dislike people using and abusing history for personal political ends. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous... https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said Edit: Looks like rayneir beat me to the punch
- erdevs 10y ago
  I completely disagree with Wittes' take that there is any misappropriation of this quote or that it's meaning as commonly used in this discussion today differs greatly from it's original meaning. And please see comments above wherein Wittes' potential bias is highlighted, given his stated positions on these matters. In the historical case, Franklin was making a simple argument: don't take the Penn's offer of a short-term increase in security at the cost of long-term liberty. This reconciles perfectly well with the usage in this debate today: don't take the FBI's offer of a (supposed) increase in security (by weakening strong encryption) in exchange for a decrease in long-term liberty.
  - kobayashi 10y ago
    I'm very familiar with Wittes' position on encryption and national security issues, but I don't believe he is a biased party. I find the quote most problematic in this situation because it frames liberty and security as a dichotomy, which any even rudimentary analysis would make clear that they are not opposing forces.
    - erdevs 10y ago
      I agree they aren't opposing forces. And I also don't take Franklin's quote that way. Indeed, in the historical context, another way to put what he is saying is "don't trade short-term security for long-term security." I think that is where the quote applies in this debate. Is accepting curtailing of encryption really an increase in security. If so, is it only short-term? What are the trade-offs to liberty and freedom further out? We should indeed be very cautious about any trade-off between short-term security vs long-term security and liberty.

rayiner 10y ago

While I'm sympathetic to your point, that quote is always taken out of context: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous... > He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it. > It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

erdevs 10y ago
Thanks for the information and it's always good to have context. I was going to say that the original meaning doesn't take anything away from the quote as currently used and the power of that meaning. But Wittes already said that too, in the article you linked: > "... maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension between government power and individual liberties." I also disagree with Wittes that this means "not quite the opposite... but closer to the opposite [than the usual usage today]." Franklin was arguing that the state ought to have the right to tax in order to defend the territory on the public's behalf. The Penns were trying to offer a one-time fee in exchange for not being taxed going forward. Thus, Franklin's implication seems to be: do not trade temporary security in exchange for long-term liberty. And so, I think the quote's modern usage and its originally intended meaning are very much in alignment. Just as the Penns offered a short-term benefit to security in exchange for a longer-term loss to prospective liberty, the FBI here is offering a short-term benefit (of debatable potential) to security by disallowing encryption or having master keys/backdoors, in exchange for a longer-term loss to prospective liberty. It seems to me Wittes (and the NPR reporting) just isn't thinking about it deeply enough. It's not as simple as "oh, Franklin was original discussing a security matter and arguing for the state to provide security"... in fact, it is more nuanced and Franklin was saying that the state (and the public) should not accept, let alone advocate for, short-term security at the cost of long-term liberty and security.
- krapp 10y ago
  The problem with using that quote is that it's usually employed as an argument from authority, implying that Ben Franklin was explicitly warning that personal liberty and government force were mutually opposed, when he actually wasn't. Its modern use comes dangerously close to being propaganda.
  - erdevs 10y ago
    I have never taken this quote to mean that "personal liberty and government force were mutually opposed", per se. Instead, it's meaning seems clear to me as such: don't trade short-term security/safety in exchange for a long-term decrease in liberty. That seems to align with both the original meaning and the modern usage (despite NPR's reporting, which perhaps presents a false dichotomy).
- will_brown 10y ago
  Is maintaining smart phone encryption after the commission of a crime, when the Gov. otherwise has a lawful right to search and seize evidence used in the commission of a crime an essential liberty? There is another famous quote from John Stuart Mill, "Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." For example, take the Constitutional Right to bear arms. Obviously we have limited individual liberty to bear arms for safety through both regulations and criminal statutes. I think that trade off can be pretty reasonable in some instances (say, no guns at the airport/on a plane) and since I don't mind sacrificing a little liberty for safety I don't think that trade off makes me undeserving of either liberty of safety, does it? Please note, I am not trying to take a position other than public awareness and conversation about these things is always good; whereas, quotes about not deserving liberty or safety only serve censor an open conversation from a position of moral authority.
  - erdevs 10y ago
    > Please note, I am not trying to take a position other than public awareness and conversation about these things is always good; whereas, quotes about not deserving liberty or safety only serve censor an open conversation from a position of moral authority. I agree with you fully, there. And I'm not a personal advocate of such quotes per se (though I note their power, as you do as well). I was simply arguing that it may be a false dichotomy to claim that the original meaning of the quote is "nearer the opposite" of it's current usage. Oversimplifying matters and creating false dichotomies also "serve [to] censor an open conversation" through logical fallacy and through historical authority, in this case. I think Franklin's quote is bombastic for dramatic effect, and that has its pluses and minuses. I think the real meaning is fairly simple and worthy of consideration, though: be very careful about trading short-term security at the cost of long-term freedom/liberty. In consideration of that point, there is a meaningful debate here. We should examine whether backdoors or other means of foiling encryption would actually provide a net increase to security in practice, or whether they might have no real effect or even decrease security. If we believe means of foiling encryption actually increase security overall in practice, then we would have to debate the tradeoffs to freedom/liberty, the potential for governmental abuse, etc. Given the government's track record of dramatic overreaching in the name of "security", I'm personally hesitant to take any of this lightly.
erdevs 10y ago
While we are discussing context, it is also good to consider your sources. The person quoted by NPR may have an agenda; consider the below. It should well be noted that Benjamin Wittes, the person quoted in parent by NPR, is a noted proponent of increased national security at the cost of encryption.[1][2][3] While he is a Fellow at the Brookings Institute, which is generally considered non-partisan but liberal-leaning, Wittes and Brookings' stance on matters of national security have been quite pro-government / pro-"security", and he is also a member of the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law. The Hoover Institution is generally regarded as right-leaning[4][5]. His positions are consistently in line with the FBI's, believing that end-to-end encryption with no backdoor is bad for national security and worth the tradeoff. [1]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-living-will-think-you-drink-kool-aid https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-living-will-think-you... , [2]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-question-apple-hr https://www.lawfareblog.com/quick-question-apple-hr [3]: https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-definition-digital-age-chutzpah https://www.lawfareblog.com/very-definition-digital-age-chut... [4]: http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0327/032756.html http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0327/032756.html , [5]: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hoover-Institution-on-War-Revolution-and-Peace https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hoover-Institution-on-War-R...

kobayashi 10y ago

To be clear, that quote regarding liberty and safety has been taken completely out of context. Benjamin Franklin was not saying what you think he was saying. Please read the articles listed below. For the record: I'm am a privacy advocate, but I really dislike people using and abusing history for personal political ends. http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous... https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said Edit: Looks like rayneir beat me to the punch

erdevs 10y ago
I completely disagree with Wittes' take that there is any misappropriation of this quote or that it's meaning as commonly used in this discussion today differs greatly from it's original meaning. And please see comments above wherein Wittes' potential bias is highlighted, given his stated positions on these matters. In the historical case, Franklin was making a simple argument: don't take the Penn's offer of a short-term increase in security at the cost of long-term liberty. This reconciles perfectly well with the usage in this debate today: don't take the FBI's offer of a (supposed) increase in security (by weakening strong encryption) in exchange for a decrease in long-term liberty.
- kobayashi 10y ago
  I'm very familiar with Wittes' position on encryption and national security issues, but I don't believe he is a biased party. I find the quote most problematic in this situation because it frames liberty and security as a dichotomy, which any even rudimentary analysis would make clear that they are not opposing forces.
  - erdevs 10y ago
    I agree they aren't opposing forces. And I also don't take Franklin's quote that way. Indeed, in the historical context, another way to put what he is saying is "don't trade short-term security for long-term security." I think that is where the quote applies in this debate. Is accepting curtailing of encryption really an increase in security. If so, is it only short-term? What are the trade-offs to liberty and freedom further out? We should indeed be very cautious about any trade-off between short-term security vs long-term security and liberty.