What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
37 Comments
- stoanhart, on 03/11/2009, -3/+24Don't let the description mislead you. I first thought this article was about justifying a surveillance society because security is above privacy. That is NOT what the article is about. Read it, it's excellent.
- kd420, on 03/11/2009, -3/+20A lot of these privacy issues come up because of 9/11. If you don't allow the government to watch you, the terrorists are going to get you! Unfourtunately it was the incompetence of the Bush administration that was more to blame than the lack of surveillance for the attacks. There is a balance between security and privacy, the same balance we had before 9/11. No new tactics have been devised (terrorism has always existed) that necessitated this change, it was just one government dropping the ball.
"It is, rather, the "security" of knowing your personal life is in some sense sacrosanct—as contrasted with the pervasive insecurity that citizens of a police state live under." You can live your whole life inside out of fear of being struck by lightning, and you can wiretap every man, woman and child out of fear of terrorists. We as a society must grow up and realize that actions (such as invading other countries) have more of an impact than surveillance. - freefallgrue, on 03/12/2009, -0/+16Those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security will find themselves with neither.
I paraphrase, but you get the idea. - pilgrim3970, on 03/12/2009, -0/+15"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.
- buddyw, on 03/11/2009, -0/+11Another thought provoking Ars article from Julian Sanchez.
- Heapbasket, on 03/12/2009, -0/+9Title was a little misleading, but the article was a really good read.
- inactive, on 03/12/2009, -0/+8Don't you wish that the rest of the amendments were as clear as the first? "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW" was pretty damn crystal. Or even just a series of examples for some of them. "Look, if you guys do this, that's bad, though this is okay, but not if you do it naked."
- ivanmarsh, on 03/12/2009, -3/+11Anyone who wants to do away with privacy should expect to find me hiding in their closet.
- maz2331, on 03/12/2009, -0/+8Slightly inaccurate summary - it should read "where individual security is the guiding principle". (IE - one can feel and be secure that the authorities are not invading their space, communications, or taking their stuff).
One word can make a big difference! - PhilPerspective, on 03/12/2009, -0/+7Yup, good ol' Ben Franklin said that. Can't get better than a Founding Father. And he is right.
- ChrisTek, on 03/12/2009, -2/+8"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
- sigmaman2, on 03/12/2009, -0/+6Even though privacy is not mentioned in the fourth amendment, the concept is there. Security is the first idea mentioned, though. Maybe the fourth amendment means something deeper than we thought it did. Maybe it doesn't just mean that we have a right to privacy. Maybe it means that we have the right to be secure in our privacy.
- airstrike, on 03/12/2009, -1/+6i suggest reading the article first, goes221.
- jave8u, on 03/12/2009, -2/+7Since I like my "privates" to be relatively "secure," just replace security with privacy again and we're good :)
- inactive, on 03/12/2009, -0/+4I was going to paste the same, Interesting concept, that the individual isn't so much concerned with the the privacy aspect, but in their right to be secure.
From TFA: "the "security" of knowing your personal life is in some sense sacrosanct."
So that with wiretapping, if people feel they are no longer secure in their privacy, the acts are against the law. - pardonmedoug, on 03/12/2009, -0/+4RTFA
- fyngyrz, on 03/12/2009, -1/+4The problem really isn't that privacy needs to be replaced with security; the problem is that privacy itself is being roundly misinterpreted.
Explaining privacy, along with 4th amendment implications, I present the following:
http://fyngyrz.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/on-privacy ... - positron, on 03/12/2009, -0/+3There is not a person alive today so free from the influence of politics and money that I would trust them with the sacred duty of rewriting our constitution while preserving its spirit.
- freefallgrue, on 03/12/2009, -1/+4Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to imply it is. I just wanted to make my point before the twatwaffles that seek to turn us into the UK pop in and mindrape us.
- tech42er, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2privacy: If you keep something to yourself, it's private. Otherwise, it's not private and we can take it without infringing on the 4th Amendment.
security: if the government taking this information from you would engender an authoritarian atmosphere, it would infringe on your security and be a 4th Amendment violation.
An example given in article is informants. In theory, you're freely telling them information, so the government should be able to use that information without infringing upon the 4th Amendment, right? You waived your right to privacy when you told the informant. Not so fast, says the article. The information may not be private, but the government's use of informants constitutes a breach of security of your information. You have a right to be secure, and the government is infringing on that by tricking you with informants. It's bringing about a police state. - emmeron, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2...they heard that. ;-)
- HOWLAN, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2Outstanding article.
- nextekcarl, on 03/12/2009, -1/+3This article brings up some good points. The telephone is well over 100 years old, and yet it wasn't even imagined when the Founding Fathers were alive. This just makes me believe even stronger that we need a new Constitution. I think it should be rewritten, from scratch, every 100 years. Language changes over time, such that we have to research basic terms like 'secure' to even figure out what they 'may' have meant when they wrote something over 200 years ago. I say, who cares, they are all dead and times have changed. Trying to figure out what they would have done is sort of silly, since we don't really know what they would or wouldn't do, since they have been dead for so long. We need to decide what We The People are going to do today, with the world we live in right now.
- TCBevolver, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2For gawd sake... can you trust ANYONE from Yale?
- emmeron, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2It's too bad that this will not be a convenient way to interpret the 4th amendment, and I'm sure what we've just read is the future course. Leave it to a Yale scholar.
- tjordan90, on 04/11/2009, -0/+1Do not be so hasty to dismiss this argument as pedagogical and theoretical. Much constitutional law doctrine is derived from the power of IDEAS, though it may take a few years or a few generations. Remember that the 4th Amd.'s "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard is the result of persuasive writing (such as the dissenting opinions of Justice Brandeis in the 1920s). The First Amendment was dead-letter law until the beginning of the 20th century when scholars and progressives started formulating theories about freedom of expression.
Will courts rely on this theoretical framework this year? Probably not. But a judicial citation here and there, the borrowing of fragments of arguments can chip away at old models and make room for new growth. Perhaps 50 years from now we will point to this article as the genesis of an evolution. - CenterWorld, on 09/21/2009, -0/+0information should be free for everyone
- Hashishian, on 03/12/2009, -1/+1Excellent....
Google Ron Paul makes terrorist list....oh yeah there's another million or so folks on there...
a US senator as a Terrorist..???? I wonder who else made the list.. I'll bet I'm on there...
VOTESTRIKE.WEBS.COM "Global General Strike" march 13-19 2009 ...stand up and start something, make a sign, tell your friends, call your paper, hold a screening of zeitgeist or loosechange, go to your church and speak out ..
...(maybe toss in a couple of prayers while your there...never know it might not hurt)...stop a cop and tell him, go to an army base and talk to the soldiers...(take a Video Camera)..for protection...??? if we all could just drop the left right liberal conservative crap and realize this global...not just the US...if every country could unite its people for those people, explain to me how that could be wrong...??
Remember We Surround them..... - madduck623, on 03/12/2009, -1/+1You should read the article; it's certainly not about trading security for liberty in the way you used the word security.
- tech42er, on 03/12/2009, -2/+2THIS ARTICLE IS NOT DEFENDING INFRINGING PRIVACY IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY. It's trying to strengthen the Fourth Amendment to close some loopholes the government has used in its definition of privacy to go around the Fourth Amendment. Don't quote Benjamin Franklin in the comments; you just look like an idiot who didn't bother to read the article!
- tech42er, on 03/12/2009, -2/+2In other words, ***** THE CONSTITUTION. It's useless if you're just going to ignore it. And throwing it away to start over from scratch is ignoring it. You can AMEND it, but you can't simply abrogate it. And the definition of security hasn't changed much in 230 years; this article is looking more at the nuances that result from its use in that particular phrasing.
- nextekcarl, on 03/12/2009, -1/+1That is why no single person could be allowed to do it. Besides, what proof do you need that it is already being (and has been) subverted by the very forces you describe? People change the meaning of words in the Constitution all the time to suit what they 'think' it should mean. And being written over 200 years ago just makes it easier.
- m0n0kr0m3, on 03/12/2009, -2/+1Elitist bastards...
- leopardhunter, on 03/12/2009, -3/+1I don't get it. If you have privacy, then you have security in your papers and possessions. If you have privacy, you have that sense of security. Why should it matter whether we call "it" security or privacy?
While the essay may be excellent scholarship, I'm afraid it may be only rearranging the garden gnomes as opposed to leading to any real change in the yard, if that were desirable. - goes211, on 03/12/2009, -4/+2This is a false choice! We only gain security if we assume BENEVOLENT use of our private information by an all powerful government. It is very easy to imagine a government, either now or in the future, that would abuse this information, to the detriment of its people.
They can have my privacy when they take it from my cold dead body! - nwoantibody, on 03/11/2009, -15/+7RON PAUL!
- inactive, on 03/12/2009, -9/+1Shouldn't it be security vs piracy and not privacy? Just saying you know, with all the self righteous intellectual theft being expressed on digg.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is