This link has been bookmarked by 28 people . It was first bookmarked on 29 Jan 2008, by Greg Parmer.
-
31 Jul 13
-
In order for cyberspace to be policed, internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation,"
-
In order for cyberspace to be policed, internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search. "Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation
-
Security affects privacy only when it's based on identity, and there are limitations to that sort of approach.
-
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity
-
Security is vital to survival, not just of people but of every living thing. Privacy is unique to humans, but it's a social need. It's vital to personal dignity, to family life, to society -- to what makes us uniquely human -- but not to survival.
-
-
01 Nov 10
-
09 Jun 10
fschoubbenPrivacy and security are not a zero-sum game. http://is.gd/cIw4C
– Lionel Montrieux (lmontrieux) http://twitter.com/lmontrieux/statuses/15769446889 -
09 Feb 10
-
If there's a debate that sums up post-9/11 politics, it's security versus privacy. Which is more important? How much privacy are you willing to give up for security? Can we even afford privacy in this age of insecurity?
-
If there's a debate that sums up post-9/11 politics, it's security versus privacy. Which is more important? How much privacy are you willing to give up for security? Can we even afford privacy in this age of insecurity?
-
If there's a debate that sums up post-9/11 politics, it's security versus privacy. Which is more important? How much privacy are you willing to give up for security? Can we even afford privacy in this age of insecurity?
-
If there's a debate that sums up post-9/11 politics, it's security versus privacy. Which is more important? How much privacy are you willing to give up for security? Can we even afford privacy in this age of insecurity?
-
it's precisely why, when people in their business are in charge of government, it becomes a police state. If privacy and security really were a zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former East Germany and modern-day China. While it's true that police states like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens are fundamentally more secure.
-
Security and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other.
-
Security affects privacy only when it's based on identity, and there are limitations to that sort of approach.
-
The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control.
-
Did you catch that? You're expected to give up control of your privacy to others, who -- presumably -- get to decide how much of it you deserve. That's what loss of liberty looks like.
-
It should be no surprise that people choose security over privacy: 51 to 29 percent in a recent poll. Even if you don't subscribe to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's obvious that security is more important. Security is vital to survival, not just of people but of every living thing. Privacy is unique to humans, but it's a social need. It's vital to personal dignity, to family life, to society -- to what makes us uniquely human -- but not to survival.
-
If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
-
-
07 Dec 08
-
18 Feb 08
Mike StenhouseThe debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control.
-
15 Feb 08
-
14 Feb 08
-
13 Feb 08
-
06 Feb 08
-
04 Feb 08
-
02 Feb 08
Ari RSecurity and privacy are not opposite ends of a seesaw; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control.
-
31 Jan 08
-
-
30 Jan 08
-
brockmoeller"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither.
Bookmarks schneier security privacy government surveillance rights
-
29 Jan 08
-
David BeckerNothing new, but Schneier always says it well.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.