3 ms·

This isn't a case of absolute loss of privacy vs. absolute security. Details do in fact matter.

• drivebyacct2 13y ago
  But we don't know the details. We know the rounded, approximate number of "terrorist attacks" and we know of one vague storied "plot". There's no details to weigh or consider. We still don't have a complete picture of the surveillance in use, but as far as I'm concerned, a live and archived-accessible account of most all of my online dealings/writings/readings/purchases... constitutes a pretty huge loss of privacy, though clearly not "absolute".
  • Tloewald 13y ago
    I won't disagree with this, but when some details are presented and argued over it's wrong to dismiss them airily as being irrelevant and compare the situation to a straw man involving absolute loss of privacy.
• josephlord 13y ago
  It is pretty close to an absolute loss of privacy[1][2] for at best a modest gain in the already high level of security[3]. [1] At least at the upper end of the speculation. I don't have a good handle on the true situation as I don't trust those who fully know to tell me straight. [2] The ability to gather metadata, listen in, record and analyze communications means that they are not private even if they are not all listened as we don't know that they are not being monitored. [3] Defined by the annual US casualty figures due to terrorism.