6 ms·
Yes, we can have security and privacy. People drastically over estimate the risks from things like terrorist attacks and high crime. Just think about the number
by nxc18 8y ago
Yes, we can have security and privacy. People drastically over estimate the risks from things like terrorist attacks and high crime. Just think about the number of people and hugely vulnerable systems (even existing security is a joke - why not bomb a TSA line for example? Or accidentally carry a gun through, which happens all the time) and how rarely things go wrong. There's just no need for these over the top surveillance machines. Security doesn't stop motivated attackers anyway (see all terrorist attacks since 9/11).
As far as everyday crime goes, I suspect a social safety net would take care of most of it. Most people aren't bad, but they will do bad things when they need help but don't get it. Once you get past that point, the cost of crime is probably less than the cost of trying to get perfect enforcement.
- bArray 8y agoAgreed. 1. Security is usually a knee jerk reaction to something that has happened and rarely correctly addresses the full problem scope, just one specific edge case that was experienced. This typically happens because people over weight the probability of such an event happening to them, due to the short nature of it and lack of control. In contrast to 9/11, you won't see nearly the funding or awareness of some of the largest killers, such as obesity, cancer, US-based violence, alcohol, opioids, etc. 2. Anybody correctly motivated can bypass said security, because it is never well thought out and doesn't cover all possible scenarios. With some time and some know-how, any individual could defeat TSA (or any other Countries) security. At the moment the only benefit is those who seek to terrorize Western society are usually desperate or ill funded. 3. Security tends to lure people into a false sense of security, so people in general are just as secure as they were, because they stop being aware of insecurities. There is a study showing that Countries with and without bicycle helmets have roughly the same number of deaths - the reason being that drivers recognize cyclists without helmets as being more vulnerable, hence going to greater lengths to avoid collision. To the point, all of these cameras are unlikely to make us more secure. What they will do on the other hand is lend themselves to abuse by government or corporate entities to any extent they think they can get away with.
- lambdadmitry 8y agoI have a counterexample to make: Skripal's case. AFAIK the police pieced together CCTV footage from multiple cameras, which allowed to track and identify the suspects. Given that the suspects are likely trained hitmen and the stakes were pretty high, I can only assume that the main reason most crimes don't get solved that way is the complexity of the search. ML is poised to change that. I'm not sure I'm for surveillance per se, but I do believe painting CCTV as useless and inefficient is wrong. It can be efficient in aiding high-level investigations if applied properly.
- King-Aaron 8y ago> Or accidentally carry a gun through I couldn't possibly imagine a scenario where you just forget that you're carrying a gun...
- xboxnolifes 8y agoDo you carry a gun daily?
- King-Aaron 8y agoWhy would one need to, unless you are police/military and thus required to for work?
- stonogo 8y agoNobody is required to demonstrate need to King-Aaron. Your opinions on the policy are not relevant to the practical concerns regarding its implementation. For the record, I agree with you, but this isn't really an appropriate place to soapbox about it.
- TomMarius 8y agoI started carrying a gun after I was attacked and the nearby police unit continued to write a parking ticket in the meanwhile.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoIf you carry all the time (which most people who carry do, better than just leaving it in your car or something) it becomes natural like carrying your keys or wallet. If you're carrying your handgun in the bottom of a purse and rarely take it out it's even easier to forget.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lambdadmitry 8y ago
- siruncledrew 8y agoI see it as security is about control, and privacy is about removal. Privacy and security aren't mutually exclusive, but they aren't exactly symbiotic either. It's fair to say an individual would want both security and privacy (for example, as with your home). Like many things, it's about finding the right balance. I'm sure if you look to the extremes of security and privacy you could find a bunch of crazy examples. The wildcard is the who. That is what throws off the scales, as the security/privacy relationship moves from a micro to a macro level, and suddenly a person's real autonomy comes into question.