• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

What's More Important: Security or Privacy?


4 legs good 2 legs bad
Not 100% no, I don't think we could ever get to a stage of being 100% protected, but some is better than none isn't it?
I think you're assuming once again that there can't be some protection without sacrificing our privacy and Constitutional rights, while also ignoring the potential threat our own governments pose to our security.

As Edward Snowden puts it, we have created the possibility of a "turn-key tyranny." You may trust your government now, but you're always only one election cycle away from a potential authoritarian state who will use their new-found powers for malevolent purposes now that all of the safeguards have been removed. It's really not all that far-fetched.

You still think we can prevent at least some attacks without using technology? How do you think it's possible? If terrorists are using technology to plan their attacks, then how do we find and stop them without using technology in return. That's the main thing I'm curious about. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if this were possible. I just don't see how it could be done.
It's not about technology vs no technology. It's about how that technology is used and who is being targeted by it.

Having nothing to hide doesn't mean you want to show everything. There's a huge leap in difference to the Government scanning e-mails and phone calls for key words, and then having 24 hour surveillance in your home. You can having nothing to hide but still not want someone to watch you take a shit, or have sex, or whatever other private things happen in your house. I know you yourself admitted this is you taking the example to an extreme, but the leap is so extreme in this case that I don't really see how it's relevant to this conversation.
That's purely subjective. To you, having government surveillance of your home might seem extreme, but other people might see it as necessary to catching all evildoers. In fact, some people would probably get off on knowing they were being watched while having sex.

And this, too, is not very far-fetched. The technology is out there for not only the government, but for anyone to hack your phone and gain access to its cameras, microphone, contacts, and to track your whereabouts. They don't need to install surveillance cameras in every household. People already willingly carry them around with them everywhere they go.

As I asked earlier in the thread, where do you draw the line? If those sorts of extreme measures would assist the government and law enforcement in stopping terrorism and catching all the bad guys, should it be done? Why or why not?


4 legs good 2 legs bad
Regardless of whether you think Edward Snowden is a hero or a traitor, it's worth listening to what the guy has to say. I recommend this video to anyone who has any interest in the security vs privacy debate. Hell, if you own a cell phone, you should watch it.



Problematic Shitlord
I hate the idea of being vulnerable, but I hate the idea of being shackled even more.

I will never sacrifice security for privacy especially since NO ONE can guarantee my safety.