Washington Post: Yes, We Need To Give Up Liberty For Security
from the oh-really-now? dept
By now you've probably seen the paraphrase of a Ben Franklin quote that those who give up liberty for security, deserve neither (he said similar things a few different ways, but the standard actual quote is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.") Whatever the actual quote is, there is quite a lot of truth to it. Giving up liberty for the sake of security rarely works out as planned. Either way, it appears that the editorial board of the Washington Post is either wholly unfamiliar with the quote, or believes it to be untrue. It has come out with an editorial arguing in favor of extending the FISA Amendments Act (and against an ACLU/EFF challenge to the law, to be heard today at the Supreme Court, even with the crazy weather) saying that it is perfectly fine to "give up liberty" for security:Discomfort with the government’s capacity, technical or legal, to collect and retain massive amounts of personal information is understandable. But the 2008 FISA amendments sought a compromise between two essential goals: preserving American liberty and robustly defending Americans’ lives and property. We favored the law and believe that it should be extended.That's somewhat ridiculous. After all, as we've noted over and over again, almost no one seems to understand what's actually in the FISA Amendments Act, in part because there's a secret interpretation of it that only the government knows. This means that many, many people, including those in Congress, are clearly misrepresenting what's in the law. The fact that the NSA refuses to say how often it has used this secret interpretation to spy on Americans should be a pretty big warning sign -- especially as politicians who are either clueless or ignorant claim that it can't be used to spy on Americans.
And really, this is the root of the "don't give up liberty for security" quote. Once you do that, you're cooked, because it's a situation that only expands in one direction. Those who seek to hold back liberty will always make use of scare stories and FUD to seek to be able to spy further. You would think that the editorial board of the Washington Post, which has been covering this kind of mess for quite some time, would actually have some sort of ability to look back at history. Apparently its historical knowledge is close to nil.
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
Filed Under: fisa, fisa amendments act, liberty, security, spying, surveillance
Companies: washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm just gonna say it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm just gonna say it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm just gonna say it
Security is also "security from being imprisoned without a charge", security is also "security from not being taken out of your home at night by the secret police", security is also "security from an unfair process", security is also "security from not being bombed by a drone because your neighbour happens to host a wanted criminal", security is also "security from being groped by some customs official". And so on.
What you get if you give up liberty is a totalitarian state. And you'll will find that in a totalitarian state, you've got no security at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/civil-liberties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
STOP FUCKING PIMPING YOUR CANDIDATE.
Your adding nothing to the discussion, instead hoping to SEO your candidate to success. Its not going to happen.
I would hope that everyone just reports everything you post so it goes the hell away until such time your here to actually participate instead of promote your candidate.
Now DIAFIRL and go away, the grownups are trying to talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They aren't even addressing the law yet
(and we've seen previously where even absolute evidence is not enough if the feds are allowed pull out the state secrets card).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They aren't even addressing the law yet
We are all harmed by the government doing unconstitutional things in our name, regardless of whether they are doing unconstitutional things to us, or others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How will history remember us, in this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "Naive Mike" makes an appearance.
At #3 AC: "Search Google, YouTube & Facebook" are just corporate fronts for the power structure that inflicts on us the "Patriot Act" and NDAA.
Let me give ya a sports analogy: The team owners not only own both teams, but the playing field, control the rules and the referees, get a slice of the concession, own the TV rights and all branded products, and get the gov't to tax you to build the playing field and roads specially for it, while they (the NFL for sure) are tax-exempt. -- It's not juse win-win for them, it's WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN in every area. So too has the ruling class got EVERY every area under nearly total control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "Naive Mike" makes an appearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "Naive Mike" makes an appearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "Naive Mike" makes an appearance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want to experience security (state hospitality at its finest), try living in a prison. There you'll be fed, clothed, bathed, and closely monitored at all times -- you'll have everything you need, except freedom. This is in essence what the Washington Post and others are pushing for.
History doesn't lie: most of the greatest atrocities were committed under the guise of peace and security, such as Hitler disarming the German people and putting up posters telling people to spy on and turn in dissidents, before all hell broke loose. Much like our country, the Germans were all wrapped up in their national pride, believing themselves to be the 'superior race' to the point where they became blind or indifferent to the atrocities they were committing.
As the old saying goes, those who forget about history are doomed to repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Terrorism?
Makes me laugh every time I see or hear "war on terror".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You make a good point about priorities
Am I kidding? Am I serious? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.
But think about it. The CDC estimates 443,000 US deaths per year from smoking. That's almost 150 September Elevenths every year.
If we were to trade some liberty to save lives, wouldn't that be a better deal? I'm sure that a look at the CDC death statistics could suggest a few other better trade-offs as well.
Or is terrorism different somehow? Is it because 3000 people died spectacularly in just a few specific locations in one day, vs. the 6000 or so people who died that day of cancer, heart and lung disease, one-by-one, in hospitals, homes and hospices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You make a good point about priorities
There is no such thing as anti-terrorism. There is only State-sanctioned terrorism and non-State-sanctioned terrorism. The US has a massive amount of the former, whereas Afghanistan has more of the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, I don't want to smell that shit pile burning! Just bury it and be done with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
!!!
Maybe we need to start up the whole communist scare again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congress has abdicated its role in providing checks and balances to presidential power, and neither party is interested in changing that. And Presidents like the power, and neither party's candidates are willing to give that up either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet we are willing to elect and send the same @sshats back every cycle.
I don't care what your party affiliation is if you want to send a clear message (If your tired of being fed the same crap year after year) don't vote for ANY incumbent. Once we have cleared out the people that have been bought and paid for a couple of times, they might actually remember who they work for. [Hint: it isn't all those suits that send lobbyists your way, it is the ones that pull the lever every 2, 4, or 6 years.]
So PULL A DIFFERENT LEVER THIS YEAR. Vote them all out of a job!
/rant
I now return you to your regularly scheduled OOTB rants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last time I checked, Banks and Pharmaceutical companies could not VOTE.
Each person has one vote. Don't vote, don't bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't matter (even though you're probably right)
If we knew that the cops would henceforth not enforce speed limits and traffic laws, we'd pretty much obey them, right? Except in extenuating circumstances, like, you know, we overslept. Then we might do 45 in a school zone and kind of sort of roll through a few stop signs where no one was probably coming. We're good drivers, and it's not like we do it all the time. But if we're late, the boss is gonna get pissed, and he's already in a bad mood this week.
Keeping the executive accountable isn't just for the conscience of the president. It's why we have 2 other branches of government. And they're the ones who are really failing us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't matter (even though you're probably right)
"When the elected become corrupt, when the land falls to Tyranny, it the the American's right, nay, their duty, to overthrow their Government and start from the beginning."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doesn't matter (even though you're probably right)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't matter (even though you're probably right)
The demise of the United States started with the corruption of privileges. The founders of the country wanted a balanced government with three parties to balance the creation, execution and implementation of laws. Basically the high school teachings' equivalent of our checks and balances system.
When exactly this started falling apart will probably be debated for years, but it's a given fact that the Executive privilege has been used to conceal rather than protect during both the Obama and Bush administrations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've totally lost perspective. To you, this Obama Bush probably even looks "left-wing". I only see authoritarian extremists. Including that looney that wrote the above Washington-Post article.
Behold: http://politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php
Where are there the champions of liberty? Well, Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson probably, but they are both not extremely libertarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They can't be bothered to investigate anything or anyone unless they can make sure it will raise circulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excuse me, but those very government officials have no clue about the internets. Most of them probably believe Al Gore invented it. And their complete lack of knowledge is the best reason for them to leave their grubby little mitts and their increasingly ill-informed, poorly-intended laws as far away as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
_Land of the brave going to Hell? That where one goes when one becomes a Godless cowered; Sent there by oneself in ones foolishness. Not by God![ read the chicken little story] .
_"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose life,
that both thou and thy seed may live: {30:20} That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and
the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land ...." King James Bible Deuteronomy Page 136.
quote from I Am That I Am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben is right
Not only do those who exchange freedom for security deserve neither, but those who exchange freedom for security will lose both.
Prison may be security for some, but it ain't security for the prisoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This author can go fuck himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The author is an idiot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]