Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Security is more important than Privacy

Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:54:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
The 'misappropriation of threat' is the idea that people have tendencies to generalise and overestimate the threat level posed by a single stimulus to irrational and detrimental levels. For example, a feminist who has heard about the number of rapes in a country may completely avoid males or discriminate against males when selecting her social cliques. This level of fear that actively impacts the way this woman lives is both irrational and detrimental to her. It was caused by an initially correct premise:
1. Men cause rapes
And subsequently expanded via stimulus generalisation into:
2. I risk being raped by any male.
This new premise is not incorrect, however it is statistically insignificant and should not affect the way she behaves around men.

Unfortunately, this is a very similar incident to what occurs in the debate on security vs privacy. Perceptions of threat are formed from incidents where these threats were realised, and generalised to create an overarching fear of surveillance. The problem is that technically these views are correct, yes, surveillance does have a non-infinitely small risk associated with it, however the response to the threat level is irrational.

Humanist theorists have long suggested that humans tend to assign value to goals based on hierarchical priorities. For example, a person who is struggling to find food and water to survive is unlikely to be concerned about a government agency who wants to collect his meta data.

Similarly, people will only worry about their privacy in the presence of their own security. Take security away, and people will forget about their privacy and attempt to re-establish their security, before returning to address their desires for privacy.

Claiming that privacy should come before security is the view only held by those who both enjoy security and take it for granted. Should it be removed, this debate would be settled in favour of the position that security is both more fundamentally desired and more important than privacy.
For Mother Russia.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 4:44:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Privacy is an inherent aspect of security, and no less important than the other aspects. You can't give up Privacy without also giving up Security.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 4:48:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:54:18 AM, Syko wrote:
The 'misappropriation of threat' is the idea that people have tendencies to generalise and overestimate the threat level posed by a single stimulus to irrational and detrimental levels. For example, a feminist who has heard about the number of rapes in a country may completely avoid males or discriminate against males when selecting her social cliques. This level of fear that actively impacts the way this woman lives is both irrational and detrimental to her. It was caused by an initially correct premise:
1. Men cause rapes
And subsequently expanded via stimulus generalisation into:
2. I risk being raped by any male.
This new premise is not incorrect, however it is statistically insignificant and should not affect the way she behaves around men.

Unfortunately, this is a very similar incident to what occurs in the debate on security vs privacy. Perceptions of threat are formed from incidents where these threats were realised, and generalised to create an overarching fear of surveillance. The problem is that technically these views are correct, yes, surveillance does have a non-infinitely small risk associated with it, however the response to the threat level is irrational.

Humanist theorists have long suggested that humans tend to assign value to goals based on hierarchical priorities. For example, a person who is struggling to find food and water to survive is unlikely to be concerned about a government agency who wants to collect his meta data.

Similarly, people will only worry about their privacy in the presence of their own security. Take security away, and people will forget about their privacy and attempt to re-establish their security, before returning to address their desires for privacy.

Claiming that privacy should come before security is the view only held by those who both enjoy security and take it for granted. Should it be removed, this debate would be settled in favour of the position that security is both more fundamentally desired and more important than privacy.

I think it's a well-thought-out OP, but I'd appreciate if you could elaborate further on one point. What exactly are the threats from surveillance, and what are their magnitudes and probabilities, in your estimation? I'm asking this because I think this is quite essential to showing that security outweighs privacy.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 4:59:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 4:44:25 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Privacy is an inherent aspect of security, and no less important than the other aspects. You can't give up Privacy without also giving up Security.

When I say security, I refer to the psychological state of being free from the fear of harm. This sense of security can exist independently of privacy for sure.
For Mother Russia.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 5:01:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 4:48:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
I think it's a well-thought-out OP, but I'd appreciate if you could elaborate further on one point. What exactly are the threats from surveillance, and what are their magnitudes and probabilities, in your estimation? I'm asking this because I think this is quite essential to showing that security outweighs privacy.

Imo there are no threats from surveillance, but for the sake of argument in showing that security outweighs privacy, I grant that some exist, even if they don't. I can't think of any threats if you were to ask me though. It's mainly the discomfort people feel if their private matters are not as private as they like.
For Mother Russia.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 5:38:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 4:59:15 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 4:44:25 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Privacy is an inherent aspect of security, and no less important than the other aspects. You can't give up Privacy without also giving up Security.

When I say security, I refer to the psychological state of being free from the fear of harm. This sense of security can exist independently of privacy for sure.

Oh. Sorry. When I say security I mean actual, real security. As in, the actual, real state of reducing the risk of harm.

I don't disagree that you can trick people into thinking they are more secure with reduced privacy, but that's hardly notable. You can trick people into believing most anything.
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 6:37:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I completely agree with OP in his assessment that the importance of safety surpasses the need for privacy. In fact I don't disagree with anything that OP write. However I don't see how a reduction in privacy would ever cause a significant increase in security. Maybe it will for the surveillant, but not the ones being surveillanced; In fact I believe the opposite to be true.

I am definitely someone who's very concerned about the collective consequences that will result from the sacrifice in private privacy, in that I believe it to be a prerequisite in our freedom of expression. Taking a step further, If we lived in state of fear of an entity eavesdropping on our conversations/actions, and the possibility of scrutiny and retributions that could follow from it, there's no question in my mind that it would impact the way we behave.

At 6/13/2016 11:54:18 AM, Syko wrote:
Unfortunately, this is a very similar incident to what occurs in the debate on security vs privacy. Perceptions of threat are formed from incidents where these threats were realised, and generalised to create an overarching fear of surveillance. The problem is that technically these views are correct, yes, surveillance does have a non-infinitely small risk associated with it, however the response to the threat level is irrational.

It's funny. I feel the exact same thing about terrorism.
AnnaCzereda
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:59:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This whole debate privacy vs security is nonsensical. One cannot exist without the other, It's not really a philosophical problem but a political one; people are simply afraid that the governments and security services will use the possibilities the technology offers to abuse their power.

With the development of technology, there comes the greater possibility of surveillance and not only by the state. It's not only the security services and the police that can monitor your activities but also the marketing companies, not to mention cyber criminals. They spy on you because they can.

My buddy once said that the better mice traps make better mice. There are ways to ensure your privacy, only they can sometimes be a pain in the ***. Personally, I think that all those fears of surveillance are more like fear mongering. It's not true that the state/Big Brother is watching EVERYONE. To control everybody means to control nobody. The more data the the security services gather, the harder it is for them to thoroughly analyze it.
He wished to turn his countenance from the smoldering rubble, but saw from amidst the embers that a few chaff would not burn away. To these, he stared into the eye of God sneering, and called them, 'Promethean.'
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 1:02:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 5:38:19 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/13/2016 4:59:15 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 4:44:25 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Privacy is an inherent aspect of security, and no less important than the other aspects. You can't give up Privacy without also giving up Security.

When I say security, I refer to the psychological state of being free from the fear of harm. This sense of security can exist independently of privacy for sure.

Oh. Sorry. When I say security I mean actual, real security. As in, the actual, real state of reducing the risk of harm.

I don't disagree that you can trick people into thinking they are more secure with reduced privacy, but that's hardly notable. You can trick people into believing most anything.

For a population, you don't actually need safety if the people are completely fine with how things are, which is a contributing factor that prevents changes in gun laws in the US.

If we assume that the requirement of safety is the tangible outcomes and statistics associated with low crime rates/terrorist attacks then it's clear that this security is still able to exist independently of privacy.

Reducing the physical manifestations of threat posed to civilians is done by enacting political strategies such as
>Increasing funding to counter terrorism
>Giving more powers to the police
Very few things I can think of have any relevance to privacy.

Furthermore, we know there are strategies that improve the security of the populace without actually doing anything about the crime. For example, shows of force and unperturdness creates the sense of security by increasing civilian confidence in the protection abilities of the state. Therefore the definition of security as a purely psychological state is the more correct definition to use in this case.
For Mother Russia.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 2:30:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 1:02:59 AM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 5:38:19 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 6/13/2016 4:59:15 PM, Syko wrote:
At 6/13/2016 4:44:25 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
Privacy is an inherent aspect of security, and no less important than the other aspects. You can't give up Privacy without also giving up Security.

When I say security, I refer to the psychological state of being free from the fear of harm. This sense of security can exist independently of privacy for sure.

Oh. Sorry. When I say security I mean actual, real security. As in, the actual, real state of reducing the risk of harm.

I don't disagree that you can trick people into thinking they are more secure with reduced privacy, but that's hardly notable. You can trick people into believing most anything.

For a population, you don't actually need safety if the people are completely fine with how things are, which is a contributing factor that prevents changes in gun laws in the US.

You are interchanging the terms "safety" and "security." While the terms are related, most people make a distinction between the two (though those distinctions made differ from person to person.

If we assume that the requirement of safety is the tangible outcomes and statistics associated with low crime rates/terrorist attacks then it's clear that this security is still able to exist independently of privacy.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Privacy is a component of security. You literally cannot have security without privacy.

Reducing the physical manifestations of threat posed to civilians is done by enacting political strategies such as
>Increasing funding to counter terrorism
>Giving more powers to the police
Very few things I can think of have any relevance to privacy.

Furthermore, we know there are strategies that improve the security of the populace without actually doing anything about the crime. For example, shows of force and unperturdness creates the sense of security by increasing civilian confidence in the protection abilities of the state. Therefore the definition of security as a purely psychological state is the more correct definition to use in this case.

I disagree. If you haven't done anything about crime, then you haven't improved the security of the populace. Tricking people into believing they are safe or secure doesn't actually make them safe or secure. That's just wishful thinking.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:12:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 11:54:18 AM, Syko wrote:
The 'misappropriation of threat' is the idea that people have tendencies to generalise and overestimate the threat level posed by a single stimulus to irrational and detrimental levels. For example, a feminist who has heard about the number of rapes in a country may completely avoid males or discriminate against males when selecting her social cliques. This level of fear that actively impacts the way this woman lives is both irrational and detrimental to her. It was caused by an initially correct premise:
1. Men cause rapes
And subsequently expanded via stimulus generalisation into:
2. I risk being raped by any male.
This new premise is not incorrect, however it is statistically insignificant and should not affect the way she behaves around men.

Unfortunately, this is a very similar incident to what occurs in the debate on security vs privacy. Perceptions of threat are formed from incidents where these threats were realised, and generalised to create an overarching fear of surveillance. The problem is that technically these views are correct, yes, surveillance does have a non-infinitely small risk associated with it, however the response to the threat level is irrational.

Humanist theorists have long suggested that humans tend to assign value to goals based on hierarchical priorities. For example, a person who is struggling to find food and water to survive is unlikely to be concerned about a government agency who wants to collect his meta data.

Similarly, people will only worry about their privacy in the presence of their own security. Take security away, and people will forget about their privacy and attempt to re-establish their security, before returning to address their desires for privacy.

Claiming that privacy should come before security is the view only held by those who both enjoy security and take it for granted. Should it be removed, this debate would be settled in favour of the position that security is both more fundamentally desired and more important than privacy.

Security from what?

What degree of loss of privacy?

Those would need to be established first to correctly assess.

One of the things that would need to be considered is that once government takes your privacy, it is unlikely it will be given back once the threat is gone. While the US government's activities of listening in on its own citizens might have been benign, it would have inevitably turned cancerous.

If I had to make a choice between allowing my government to read my emails and listen to my calls to save me from what is statistically less of a threat than a possible car accident, I will happily take my chances with the threat and keep my privacy.
Syko
Posts: 393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:24:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:30:38 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
You are interchanging the terms "safety" and "security." While the terms are related, most people make a distinction between the two (though those distinctions made differ from person to person.
Security is defined in terms of various forms of safety. So it should be fine.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Privacy is a component of security. You literally cannot have security without privacy.
you appear to credit my psychological definition of security. There is nothing unsafe or threatening about an absence of privacy. However, people feel threatened without privacy hence why it generally comes down to the psychological definition and not the actual state of affairs.

Furthermore, we know there are strategies that improve the security of the populace without actually doing anything about the crime. For example, shows of force and unperturdness creates the sense of security by increasing civilian confidence in the protection abilities of the state. Therefore the definition of security as a purely psychological state is the more correct definition to use in this case.

I disagree. If you haven't done anything about crime, then you haven't improved the security of the populace. Tricking people into believing they are safe or secure doesn't actually make them safe or secure. That's just wishful thinking.

A sense of security naturally follow from lowered crime. However my point is that lowered crime does not necessarily create a sense of security. There are many factors, and many of them are purely psychological.
For Mother Russia.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 10:14:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:24:35 AM, Syko wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:30:38 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
You are interchanging the terms "safety" and "security." While the terms are related, most people make a distinction between the two (though those distinctions made differ from person to person.
Security is defined in terms of various forms of safety. So it should be fine.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Privacy is a component of security. You literally cannot have security without privacy.
you appear to credit my psychological definition of security. There is nothing unsafe or threatening about an absence of privacy.

Patently false. Unauthorized disclosure of information can result in real harm. It can harm a person's reputation, it can be used to impersonate them and commit identity theft and gain access to other resources (such as their bank accounts). Most of the major attacks against companies are breeches of confidentiality, resulting in harm against both their consumers and the company itself.

However, people feel threatened without privacy hence why it generally comes down to the psychological definition and not the actual state of affairs.

Furthermore, we know there are strategies that improve the security of the populace without actually doing anything about the crime. For example, shows of force and unperturdness creates the sense of security by increasing civilian confidence in the protection abilities of the state. Therefore the definition of security as a purely psychological state is the more correct definition to use in this case.

I disagree. If you haven't done anything about crime, then you haven't improved the security of the populace. Tricking people into believing they are safe or secure doesn't actually make them safe or secure. That's just wishful thinking.

A sense of security naturally follow from lowered crime. However my point is that lowered crime does not necessarily create a sense of security. There are many factors, and many of them are purely psychological.

No, that wasn't your point at all. You didn't say anything about lowered crime not creating a sense of security. In fact, you said the inverse. That NOT lowering crime CAN still create a sense of security.

I'm saying that security is NOT the psychological feeling of security. Security is a real and actual thing dealing with harm and risk, and privacy is a fundamental component of it.

You cannot have security without privacy.