2 ms·

The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. Suppose it was proven to help national security, suppose it was scienti

The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. Suppose it was proven to help national security, suppose it was scientifically proven safe, would its use be palatable? There is a question over what privacy needs to be protected. If this issue gets too into WHY these devices were purchased, we may lose the next privacy debate.

epo 16y ago
The issues are separate, privacy invasion is wrong and should be stopped. Corrupt procurement is a crime and should be prosecuted. I would expect a corrupt individual to try and deflect attention by saying things like, "never mind how they were bought, look at how secure our airports are". EDIT there are two issues I don't see that one has priority over the other. I agree, reluctantly, that to avoid confusing the public it might help to focus on one issue but possible corruption needs to be addressed eventually.
rhizome 16y ago
All of these things should contribute to a debate that should not be artifically limited by the values of any participant or for simplicity's sake. Privacy and health are more aspects of a complicated situation that should not just be imposed on the population like this one is. I mean, I hope its not controversial to assert that the scanners are being imposed. And for the record, it hasn't been proven to help national security. It also doesn't make ice cream, but what if it did? Is the best idea we can come up with the one that coincidentally is being cheerled by Michael Chertoff? Among many other misgivings, this is not the right place for the revolving door of politics, opportunism and business. US tax dollars are paying for all of this, after all.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
>The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. It should clearly be about both. Both are huge, existential problems.

epo 16y ago

The issues are separate, privacy invasion is wrong and should be stopped. Corrupt procurement is a crime and should be prosecuted. I would expect a corrupt individual to try and deflect attention by saying things like, "never mind how they were bought, look at how secure our airports are". EDIT there are two issues I don't see that one has priority over the other. I agree, reluctantly, that to avoid confusing the public it might help to focus on one issue but possible corruption needs to be addressed eventually.

rhizome 16y ago

All of these things should contribute to a debate that should not be artifically limited by the values of any participant or for simplicity's sake. Privacy and health are more aspects of a complicated situation that should not just be imposed on the population like this one is. I mean, I hope its not controversial to assert that the scanners are being imposed. And for the record, it hasn't been proven to help national security. It also doesn't make ice cream, but what if it did? Is the best idea we can come up with the one that coincidentally is being cheerled by Michael Chertoff? Among many other misgivings, this is not the right place for the revolving door of politics, opportunism and business. US tax dollars are paying for all of this, after all.

SkyMarshal 16y ago

>The debate should be about the ethics of privacy and HOW it is being violated, not WHY. It should clearly be about both. Both are huge, existential problems.