4 ms·

Actually the normal care more about the safety than what you said privacy. You can choose what you called freedom and privacy, but I also have the right to choo

Actually the normal care more about the safety than what you said privacy. You can choose what you called freedom and privacy, but I also have the right to choose safety. Why you would say your choice is prior than my choice?

jodrellblank 9y ago
Because choosing privacy gets privacy, but choosing safety by handing over the keys to your life to other people, strangers, working for their own interests, for commercial interests, for power and money, does not get you safety. Because an individual choosing privacy implicitly chooses privacy for everyone, but an individual choosing 'safety' (in this context) implicitly chooses no privacy for everyone else, and implicitly unsafety for people who needed that privacy while not actually doing anything illegal. (Or maybe doing something technically illegal but still just or reasonable or morally right). It's an "I have nothing to hide, so you cannot hide anything", "I'm alright jack", "everyone should trust the people I trust because I agree with them" approach.
k-mcgrady 9y ago
The 'safety' choice is misinformed. People have allowed what they see in the media and what politicians are saying to cause them fear - fear which is completely irrational. I noticed this during the Question Time debates in the UK the other night where Jeremy Corbyn was hounded on nuclear weapons. Some people in that audience seriously believe we are on the brink of nuclear war and want someone in charge who has no issues dropping nukes on other people. I was pissed off watching it until I realised they genuinely seem scared. But their is almost no rational behind that other than things they've heard on the news. The terror attacks in the UK in the last 3 months have been devastating - but the number of deaths and even the number of injuries needs to be kept in perspective when choosing to give up rights as important as privacy. One choice is informed by logic and reason, the other by exaggeration and lies.
- 7952 9y ago
  I don't think it is fear exactly. More that people favour "strength" and reject "weakness". Nukes are strong, and disarmament is weak. That is the same choice people make again and again. The actual sense of the policy is ignored in favour of simplistic rejection of naive liberal weakness (as they see it).
Symbiote 9y ago
May cut 20,000 police, which even the Daily Mail has recognised might be a more direct that to safety. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-police-numbers-paying-price.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-poli...
nickbauman 9y ago
Yeah I get that. The problem is that you can't exchange one for the other: no amount of non-privacy would have prevented this attack. This has been proven over and over again, even all the way back to the 17th century. But even this attack alone proves it. They were known to police expressing the exact creed they carried out.
Latty 9y ago
Safety is safety for now. Privacy is safety for whenever someone who doesn't like you gets into power. I would argue sacrificing long term safety for short term safety is short sighted. This also isn't just privacy - they want to ban websites with content they find extreme on. Democracy doesn't work without the ability to discuss ideas. They talk about Islamic extremists, and you say "sure, that ideology is evil", then maybe they go after proponents of assisted suicide - after all, it's illegal and they are suggesting doctors kill people! Then maybe someone else gets into power and they ban abortion - can't set up a website suggesting people kill babies! Or perhaps someone else gets in and says "This party wants to defund the NHS! People will die, better ban that!".

jodrellblank 9y ago

Because choosing privacy gets privacy, but choosing safety by handing over the keys to your life to other people, strangers, working for their own interests, for commercial interests, for power and money, does not get you safety. Because an individual choosing privacy implicitly chooses privacy for everyone, but an individual choosing 'safety' (in this context) implicitly chooses no privacy for everyone else, and implicitly unsafety for people who needed that privacy while not actually doing anything illegal. (Or maybe doing something technically illegal but still just or reasonable or morally right). It's an "I have nothing to hide, so you cannot hide anything", "I'm alright jack", "everyone should trust the people I trust because I agree with them" approach.

k-mcgrady 9y ago

The 'safety' choice is misinformed. People have allowed what they see in the media and what politicians are saying to cause them fear - fear which is completely irrational. I noticed this during the Question Time debates in the UK the other night where Jeremy Corbyn was hounded on nuclear weapons. Some people in that audience seriously believe we are on the brink of nuclear war and want someone in charge who has no issues dropping nukes on other people. I was pissed off watching it until I realised they genuinely seem scared. But their is almost no rational behind that other than things they've heard on the news. The terror attacks in the UK in the last 3 months have been devastating - but the number of deaths and even the number of injuries needs to be kept in perspective when choosing to give up rights as important as privacy. One choice is informed by logic and reason, the other by exaggeration and lies.

7952 9y ago
I don't think it is fear exactly. More that people favour "strength" and reject "weakness". Nukes are strong, and disarmament is weak. That is the same choice people make again and again. The actual sense of the policy is ignored in favour of simplistic rejection of naive liberal weakness (as they see it).

Symbiote 9y ago

May cut 20,000 police, which even the Daily Mail has recognised might be a more direct that to safety. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-police-numbers-paying-price.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4571186/May-cut-poli...

nickbauman 9y ago

Yeah I get that. The problem is that you can't exchange one for the other: no amount of non-privacy would have prevented this attack. This has been proven over and over again, even all the way back to the 17th century. But even this attack alone proves it. They were known to police expressing the exact creed they carried out.

Latty 9y ago

Safety is safety for now. Privacy is safety for whenever someone who doesn't like you gets into power. I would argue sacrificing long term safety for short term safety is short sighted. This also isn't just privacy - they want to ban websites with content they find extreme on. Democracy doesn't work without the ability to discuss ideas. They talk about Islamic extremists, and you say "sure, that ideology is evil", then maybe they go after proponents of assisted suicide - after all, it's illegal and they are suggesting doctors kill people! Then maybe someone else gets into power and they ban abortion - can't set up a website suggesting people kill babies! Or perhaps someone else gets in and says "This party wants to defund the NHS! People will die, better ban that!".