4 ms·

You can't. Most people will choose safety over freedom every single time.

dgllghr 9y ago
I completely understand where you're coming from, and I share some of that cynicism. But there are many contrary examples. Abolitionists fought in the US Civil War to end slavery. Russian journalists and politicians are killed left and right but continue to challenge Putin's dictatorship. The Kurds, though they have never had their own state, continue to resist both Turkey and ISIS. Protesters were attacked and killed for protesting the neo-nazi rally in Charlottesville, VA just last year. I think it's as Thomas Jefferson said: "...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Perhaps in this case, the suffering is not great and the vision of privacy is not strongly supported. But I disagree that people will choose safety over freedom every time.
- javajosh 9y ago
  American slaves weren't safe, so there wasn't a trade-off there.
StanislavPetrov 9y ago
Which is why you have to help explain to her that the police state has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you safe.
Panino 9y ago
This is a common fallacy, that freedom and safety are in opposition, that increasing one decreases the other, that freedom puts you in danger and a lack of freedom saves you. In this debate people often say there is perfect safety in prison, but if I imagine myself a prisoner, versus my daily life right now, I'd feel a lot less safe in prison. I've read that some prisoners go to the bathroom with one pant-leg undone, just so their legs won't be tangled at the ankles if they get violently attacked. I can't imagine my daily life being this dangerous. Freedom leads to the most security. If you scatter plot graph "free countries" and "safe countries" you'll find an unmistakable positive correlation. Whether the dangers are religious police kidnapping people for "virginity tests," people being disappeared for criticizing the government, or routine industrial accidents in places where expendable people aren't free to demand workers rights, a lack of freedom increases danger. You're pretty safe in Switzerland, not so much in Iraq.
Animats 9y ago
The ads for China's "big brother" systems, some of which are corporate/government partnerships, are way ahead of the US.[1] These are from QQ. In one public demo, jaywalkers in a city intersection had their personal details appear on a giant screen.[2] [1] https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/947649480123285505 https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/947649480123285505 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXKvo6xl6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXKvo6xl6U
willstrafach 9y ago
In the case of 702, as it is for foreign surveillance, it is not even any freedom/security tradeoff because it is not them being surveiled.

I completely understand where you're coming from, and I share some of that cynicism. But there are many contrary examples. Abolitionists fought in the US Civil War to end slavery. Russian journalists and politicians are killed left and right but continue to challenge Putin's dictatorship. The Kurds, though they have never had their own state, continue to resist both Turkey and ISIS. Protesters were attacked and killed for protesting the neo-nazi rally in Charlottesville, VA just last year. I think it's as Thomas Jefferson said: "...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Perhaps in this case, the suffering is not great and the vision of privacy is not strongly supported. But I disagree that people will choose safety over freedom every time.

javajosh 9y ago
American slaves weren't safe, so there wasn't a trade-off there.

StanislavPetrov 9y ago

Which is why you have to help explain to her that the police state has absolutely nothing to do with keeping you safe.

Panino 9y ago

This is a common fallacy, that freedom and safety are in opposition, that increasing one decreases the other, that freedom puts you in danger and a lack of freedom saves you. In this debate people often say there is perfect safety in prison, but if I imagine myself a prisoner, versus my daily life right now, I'd feel a lot less safe in prison. I've read that some prisoners go to the bathroom with one pant-leg undone, just so their legs won't be tangled at the ankles if they get violently attacked. I can't imagine my daily life being this dangerous. Freedom leads to the most security. If you scatter plot graph "free countries" and "safe countries" you'll find an unmistakable positive correlation. Whether the dangers are religious police kidnapping people for "virginity tests," people being disappeared for criticizing the government, or routine industrial accidents in places where expendable people aren't free to demand workers rights, a lack of freedom increases danger. You're pretty safe in Switzerland, not so much in Iraq.

Animats 9y ago

The ads for China's "big brother" systems, some of which are corporate/government partnerships, are way ahead of the US.[1] These are from QQ. In one public demo, jaywalkers in a city intersection had their personal details appear on a giant screen.[2] [1] https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/947649480123285505 https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/947649480123285505 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXKvo6xl6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShXKvo6xl6U

willstrafach 9y ago

In the case of 702, as it is for foreign surveillance, it is not even any freedom/security tradeoff because it is not them being surveiled.