Privacy or Safety?

[Duke]

Would you surrender some personal privacy to ensure your and your loved ones safety?

The world outside your doorstep is a mix of wonder and uncertainty filled with infinite possibilities...

Read more...

[Duke]

Like any idea there are both good and bad sides of the story. I've posted this blog article to find out what sacrifices people would make to their privacy (if any) to ensure the safety of their loved ones.

The questions are:

1. If an option existed to surgically implant a personal monitoring device would you consider getting one?
2. How would you feel if a government agency were to mandate laws for everyone to have a personal monitoring device surgically implanted?
3. Would you see such a system as an invasion of your personal privacy or a benefit to your personal safety?
4. Would this finally translate human rights finally shifting in the direction they truly belong, toward the victim and the victims family?
5. Would it be worth it if a personal safety device could also inform you of a serious impending medical emergency?

[TKDLady]

I wouldn't do anything like that if the government had any control over it. As for medical emergency or something, then it would have to be through some private entity where I had control over who knew what. Government was never meant to control our lives like they do today. I think it is obscene the way the US government is right now. I am just about ready for another revolution.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by Duke

If an option existed to surgically implant a personal monitoring device would you consider getting one?

No, I would not.

How would you feel if a government agency were to mandate laws for everyone to have a personal monitoring device surgically implanted?

An absolute and resounding "no!"

All you have to say is "government agency" and "mandate" (and frankly, you don't even have to say "mandate" as voluntary suggestions easily turn into mandates under governmental dictates)

Would you see such a system as an invasion of your personal privacy or a benefit to your personal safety?

Yes. Anything not implemented voluntarily by myself becomes an invasion.

Would this finally translate human rights finally shifting in the direction they truly belong, toward the victim and the victims family?

Not worth the risks (I'll explain shortly).

Would it be worth it if a personal safety device could also inform you of a serious impending medical emergency?

Again, anything not implemented voluntarily by myself becomes an invasion.

First point I want to make at this time is this: we will all die someday. It is inevitable. Given that fact, I want to make sure the life I will be living will be as much a life of freedom as possible.

This leads to my second point: Give government more control to oversee your life gives them too much license to control your life. There is a temptation for people to want government to be paternalistic, to take care of its people, and we see that in debates such as nationalized health care. But paternalistic governments have a tendency to control your lives and dictate what you can do and cannot do. That's a fair role for a parent who (assume for the sake of argument) loves his/her children and wants to prepare that child to someday be able to leave the nest and become self-sufficient. A government does not have that same love for its subjects. Governmental bodies care more about the wants of special interests and not about the rights and liberties of its subjects. Something the government "gives you" as a benefit is really another link in the chains that bind you. Give them total control of your security and you invite them in to control your entire lives.

A third point is this: Yes, there are instances of murders, kidnappings, thefts and such. What percent of us will, say, have our child abducted? That's probably a pretty low number. Is protecting that low percentage occurance worth have 100% compliance to an all-controlling government? That 100% is much larger than the fraction of horrible crimes. And murder by government is pretty much exempt from justice. I can survive theft. I hope to never have to deal with losing a child, but many family members have been lost under the tight-fisted control of a totalitarian government.

My primary security in my life is in my constitutional rights and liberties. Someday I will die, but I'd rather die free than live enslaved.

[Duke]

Do you think your thought process would remain the same if you were to lose a close family member or even worse, a child?

[TKDLady]

Mine would. The risk of losing a child is low. People die. It isn't always what we want but if we continue to live then the balance of nature is shifted. Government control of anything is unacceptable.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by TKDLady

Mine would. The risk of losing a child is low. People die. It isn't always what we want but if we continue to live then the balance of nature is shifted. Government control of anything is unacceptable.

Ditto that.

[Duke]

Maybe adding the government idea to the article was a mistake because I think the point here is being missed. The real message is would you rather know if you were being watched rather than being watched and not know about it?

I honestly believe there will come a day when all of us are monitored whether we know about it or not and our collective privacy will be compromised for someones perception of the greater good. The article tries to pose the question which do you prefer, the devil you know or the devil you don't?

As for statistical evidence, I agree statistically speaking the risk of losing a child is quite low but how much of your lifetime as a parent is consumed by fear of such an event? How many of us suffer strokes, heart attacks, or even partially debilitating anxiety as a result of fear? The one and only thing statistical evidence is good for is showing raw data but it does nothing to demonstrate side effects of such data.

Personally I look in the eyes of my child and I'd have no problem surrendering a level of my privacy to ensure her safety; I'd stand in front of a moving train for her. The way I see it, I'd gladly trade some measure of privacy (which I'm pr0lly doing already) to ensure those I care about are safe.

[Vautrin]

[QUOTE=Duke;113744]Like any idea there are both good and bad sides of the story. I've posted this blog article to find out what sacrifices people would make to their privacy (if any) to ensure the safety of their loved ones.

The questions are:

[1]If an option existed to surgically implant a personal monitoring device would you consider getting one?

No.

[2]How would you feel if a government agency were to mandate laws for everyone to have a personal monitoring device surgically implanted?
I'd switch allegiance.

[3]Would you see such a system as an invasion of your personal privacy or a benefit to your personal safety?

Invasion of privacy.

[4]Would this finally translate human rights finally shifting in the direction they truly belong, toward the victim and the victims family?

Nope. It would only translate into human rights once there are no victims. Sorry NRA and other lobby groups.

[5]Would it be worth it if a personal safety device could also inform you of a serious impending medical emergency?

Nope. A totally administered life is one where all freedom is lacking. And we would be moving just there, if we went along with such a scheme. It is not so much what people desire, but it is what bureaucrats desire: total control of all their objects, be they human or resources like cars. That is why government agencies (at least here) are desperate to popularize math and sciences, since too few objects are interested in pursuing careers in those fields. It does not help that the pay is generally low, working conditions are anything but great, but that is nothing that PR cannot fix..

It is still humans operating these ever increasingly complex systems. For instance, if the insurance company you use messes up a single personal detail, you will be spending eons to actually fix their error, because everybody will claim: "The computer says ... it does not make mistakes."

No matter how many systems we try and put in place, it is still humans we are dealing with. The discovery of finger prints as a tracing method did not reduce the number of homicides. It just meant that smart thugs wore gloves. Something similar may be happening with DNA soon. And then what?

Another thing people do not realize, they have already surrendered a lot of privacy.
- Medical records
- CCTV systems
- your work clock.
- online shopping
- income tax (!)
- credit card, or any other card, you use to go to the supermarket. Everybody, who does not pay in cash (and I insist doing that as much as possible) leaves trails behind.

It just takes a hacker to get the personal details of millions of people.