Security vs Privacy
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:36:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Security vs Privacy
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Does security trump privacy?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I)
 
#6
No (I)
 
#7
Yes (L)
 
#8
No (L)
 
#9
Yes (Other)
 
#10
No (Other)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 14

Author Topic: Security vs Privacy  (Read 1247 times)
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 11, 2005, 05:16:35 AM »

Does security trump privacy?

I say yes, on the one hand, because addtional security is necessary to counter the threats we face (and if you've nothing to hide, you've noting to worry about); however, on the other, more 'draconian' security policies could, to some extent, be perceived as "giving in" to the threats we face in that we are allowing them, rather than ourselves, to determine security policies

You decide

Dave
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2005, 06:28:09 AM »


Only when you have evidence that warrants violating privacy.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2005, 07:21:36 AM »

Only when you have evidence that warrants violating privacy.
Agreed, and it would need to be very strong evidence.  Otherwise, no, and that's how I voted in the poll.  I don't buy into the philosophy "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."  Even if I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't like the government breathing down my neck.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2005, 07:32:36 AM »

It depends on the circumstances. Security never trumps arbitrary or groundless invasion of privacy (security cameras in every home, wiretaps on every phone, and the like). If there is probable cause, however, a warrant is justified.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,598
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2005, 08:35:36 AM »

It depends on the circumstances. Security never trumps arbitrary or groundless invasion of privacy (security cameras in every home, wiretaps on every phone, and the like). If there is probable cause, however, a warrant is justified.

Take a look at Griswold v. Connecticut.

Anyway, I believe that if the FBI or CIA has a list of people deemed threatening to our national security, they may take the proper measures, whatever they may be, to ensure that our national security is never in jeopardy.  I agree, however, that there should be limits on security breaching privacy (security cameras in houses seems too Orwellian to me).
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2005, 08:44:49 AM »


Yes.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2005, 09:02:17 AM »
« Edited: August 11, 2005, 09:06:39 AM by Emsworth »

Take a look at Griswold v. Connecticut.
What about Griswold? If you mean that "privacy" is more broad than my earlier post implied, I would agree, but the post is within the context of the security vs. privacy question.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,598
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2005, 09:05:15 AM »

It has to do with the right to privacy.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2005, 09:06:25 AM »

It has to do with the right to privacy.
Yes, I know. I mean, what does it have to do with security as opposed to privacy? It was about contraception.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,598
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2005, 09:12:17 AM »

Oh crap, that's right.  wrong case.  I gotta look the right case up...
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,598
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2005, 09:20:44 AM »

Closest links to Supreme Court cases referring to the rights of citizens and national security include Schenck v. US (1919) and Korimatsu v. US (1944), though both are probably not applicable to the situation being discussed here.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2005, 08:26:35 PM »

Only when you have evidence that warrants violating privacy.
Agreed, and it would need to be very strong evidence.  Otherwise, no, and that's how I voted in the poll.  I don't buy into the philosophy "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."  Even if I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't like the government breathing down my neck.

Well said.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 13 queries.