Good News: No Need To Trade Privacy For Security
from the have-your-privacy-and-eat-it-too dept
Benjamin Franklin once famously said that, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This has been a mantra of many people opposed to the increasing use of surveillance technology in society and the disproportionate responses the government displays to any conceivable dangern. But, is liberty really at odds with safety and security, and is technology necessarily going to erode privacy over time? A new study by the UK Royal Academy of Engineering concludes that this needn't be a problem so long as engineers design systems with privacy in mind. For example, the study notes, travel and shopping could be designed to allow for anonymity with greater use of things like loyalty cards not tied to an individual. This kind of thing is already happening a bit, as the use of gift cards is exploding, along with decentralized online identity systems like OpenID. Still, the study's authors do seem a bit naive when arguing that the government should put more privacy rules in place on businesses, and make greater use of experts before designing centralized databases. While these suggestions sound nice, it's hard to imagine that the government will ever become a leading force for better, privacy-oriented technology.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
...and the company that employed them...
This is why open-source review is so important. It can help increase trustworthiness and at the same time increase the chance of serious security bugs going unnoticed until someone steals the entire database.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tough to Swallow
I do think it's true in theory, but there are plenty of areas besides anonymous purchasing that need protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safety vs Freedom
These do restrict liberty and as the previous posted commented, privacy does not equal liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety vs Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety vs Freedom
yes, yes, no, no, no, some
I have no problem with common sense laws regarding public safety. You'll note I said PUBLIC safety, as in making sure someone's stupidity doesn't kill someone else.
I do have a problem with laws that try to protect me from myself. The worst of these type of laws are the seatbelt/helmet laws.
If I choose not to wear my helmet, then crash and crack my skull open, my helmet choice only affected me, no one else. The same goes for seatbelts.
The pro- seatbelt/helmet folks will tell you that my argument diesn't hold true because when I crack my skull open my medical bills will be higher causing everyone insurance to be affected. Well, if that's true, then logically, the reverse would be true as well. If everybody all of a sudden started wearing helmets then insurance rates would go down because of less medical expenses, right?
Wrong. There is not a single state in the country whose average insurance rates decreased after implementing seatbelt/helmet laws. Hell, there isn't even a single state where rates stayed the same.
Ok, I'll get down off my soapbox now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mis-quote
Benjamin Franklin once famously said that, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
No, Ben Franklin is often attributed as having said that, be he himself seems to have denied it. The actual author of the quote is lost in history, other than to say the Pennsylvania Assembly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure where the "privacy does not equal liberty" rhetoric is coming from, so I'm finding it difficult to respond to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy DOES equal liberty
Laws should protect people from criminal activities, not criminal intent.
tracelan, since when did electrical codes infringe on a person's privacy or liberty? Sure, some argument could be made, I guess, that a person should be allowed to wire their house however they wish, they just don't ever get to sell it, or even allow another person to enter without sufficient warning. Just for the record, I'm against seat belt and car seat laws, too. You're stupid enough to ignore 'em, we're better off without you or your offspring in the gene pool.
Jared, the reason you're marked as a troll is because you are. I realize you think the world is a big and scary place right now, but despite what dubya wants you to believe, the terrorists are NOT going to get you (at least not the islamic ones). The chances of you being harmed in any way by the kinds of things these privacy-invading devices and tactics are supposed to "protect" you against are significantly lower than you getting hit by an asteroid. Grow up, little girl and raise up your steel parasol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]