Human rights vs Security?

Is implementing human rights equal to endanger public security?

Eg: On the basis of fighting terrorism, the government thinks it's ok to spy on people; most people think they have the right to their privacy and don't want to be spied on (me included). Who's right?

Are our human rights more important than public security? Are we as a society condemned to be completely controlled and have our private lives scrutinized every minute of every day?

Interesting question. I guess we have to ask ourselves, what are we worried about keeping private, and then WHY are we worried about keeping such things private? If we have nothing criminal or immoral to hide, then what is it that we are worried about having exposed? I think that many people have a little something that we want to be kept private for the reason of the fear of being judged by our fellow man. Which may be enough to guard your privacy.

kadzbiz said:

Interesting question. I guess we have to ask ourselves, what are we worried about keeping private, and then WHY are we worried about keeping such things private? If we have nothing criminal or immoral to hide, then what is it that we are worried about having exposed? I think that many people have a little something that we want to be kept private for the reason of the fear of being judged by our fellow man. Which may be enough to guard your privacy.

Click to expand...

Privacy is useful for political reasons. If we had a government in need of being overthrown,
I'd like the ability to plot this in secret. But if gov knows all, then political dissidents can
be squelched before having any effect. Security is great until it's used as a weapon against us.

Our need for protection, I think, is largely a political ploy to keep the citizenry frightened and compliant. Frightened people drop on the Maslovian scale. Their attention narrows. They're less concerned with abstractions like privacy or liberty. Their attention is diverted from non-defense political issues. Without a Bogey man the hoi polloi might start making demands and questioning, even threatening, the aristocracracy.

If today's security state were translated to previous eras would women ever have obtained the vote? Would there have been a civil rights movement? Would we still be in Viet Nam?

Substantive political progress comes from dissident movements and street demonstrations, not council meetings and votes. The government must be kept fearful of and subservient to the will the people if we're to remain a free and prosperous people.
Remember what Franklin said about trading liberty for security.

Revoltingest said:

Privacy is useful for political reasons. If we had a government in need of being overthrown,
I'd like the ability to plot this in secret. But if gov knows all, then political dissidents can
be squelched before having any effect. Security is great until it's used as a weapon against us.

Click to expand...

It's handy even if we're not planning anything illegal. If I contact my elected representative about an issue, I would rather that he not be able to look up how I voted before deciding how to respond.

SkylarHunter said:

Is implementing human rights equal to endanger public security?

Eg: On the basis of fighting terrorism, the government thinks it's ok to spy on people; most people think they have the right to their privacy and don't want to be spied on (me included). Who's right?

Are our human rights more important than public security? Are we as a society condemned to be completely controlled and have our private lives scrutinized every minute of every day?

Click to expand...

As always, I'd say there's a balance. Security is obviously important, but so is privacy. I think a certain amount of intelligence gathering/spying by the government is warranted and realistic, but only to a point. The problem is invasion of privacy is always pushed further and further under the guise of increased need for safety. I will say, though, that it's hard for me to worry about a 1984-like reality, considering the massive time and effort that would be required to even come close to anything like that.

kadzbiz said:

Interesting question. I guess we have to ask ourselves, what are we worried about keeping private, and then WHY are we worried about keeping such things private? If we have nothing criminal or immoral to hide, then what is it that we are worried about having exposed?

Click to expand...

This is what I wonder as well, especially considering what is being provided is a public service that is in everyone's best interest. I have few to no problems with these sorts of things where they serve the public good and there is reasonable oversight in place. I have massive problems with these sorts of things when they don't serve the public good, or only serve private industry or persons.

kadzbiz said:

I think that many people have a little something that we want to be kept private for the reason of the fear of being judged by our fellow man. Which may be enough to guard your privacy.

Click to expand...

For these people, I think they either need:

1) A short course in self-esteem to bolster self-confidence and self-acceptance
2) Quit doing things they're ashamed of in the first place and seek help with this if needed

It usually isn't easy to tell who will be dangerous and who will not be. When looking for a specific suspect, however, they need to know what they guy/girl looks like: If that seems like an invasion of human rights, I don't see how it can be helped in this case.

Quintessence said:

.... I have massive problems with these sorts of things when they don't serve the public good, or only serve private industry or persons. ....

Click to expand...

agreed

I don't mind sacrificing my privacy a little if, like Quintessence said, it's for the public good, but in the end, I don't know what kind of data they are collecting, where they keep it, who has access and for how long.
I think the fight against terrorism is being used as an excuse to a lot of other things that have much less noble causes.

SkylarHunter said:

Is implementing human rights equal to endanger public security?

Eg: On the basis of fighting terrorism, the government thinks it's ok to spy on people; most people think they have the right to their privacy and don't want to be spied on (me included). Who's right?

Are our human rights more important than public security? Are we as a society condemned to be completely controlled and have our private lives scrutinized every minute of every day?

Click to expand...

To me it would depend on whether or not you were willing to take responsibility for your actions and security. Meaning that when things do go horribly wrong you don't start blaming the government for not keeping you safe or start saying you were lied to.

But then it is not just one person we are talking about here.