Is security more important than privacy?

This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRlaXbYpH8

White guy tries to explain how he feels about the UK's surveillance society.

Let's discuss this subject properly.

I'll start:
Privacy is more important. A pretext for mass invasion of privacy which only harmed thousands of people in the last decade isn't sufficient. Yes, I'm talking about terrorism.

>Boston Bombings: 3 dead. Whole of Boston under lock down. Nobody can leave home. People don't even feel safe in their OWN HOME. (Picture where a guy in a light tank was pointing his rifle at the cameraman).

>7/7/05 bombings: 51~ dead. Shit ton of CCTV installed, police powers DRASTICALLY improved, less transparency in govt, more fear and tax payer money wasted on keeping the fear, internet monitoring and soon all communications.

>9/11: Almost 3k dead. Patriot Act. (Plus more obviously but that was the main one).

Feel free to continue

>>2

I understand you, but would frame the concern and issue differently.

It is always a zero sum game: a balancing test. The question is, where is it equitable for the deficiency in privacy for increased security to fall?

In the States, the Federal Government is outrageously concerned, or should be outrageously concerned, with laws which apply to everyone equally. This policy rests upon over 100 years of tradition, law and regulations.

So, any law which reduces privacy in favor of security must apply neutrally to people or groups of people, i.e., you cannot legally construct laws which are designed to invade the privacy of any suspect class or group of people (race, national origin, sex, etc...)unless there exists an incredibly important reason to do so, and the law is absolutely, 100% necessary to meet that increadable need. This is an absurdly difficult bar to meet.

So generally, all our privacy is fucked for security, until we put enough political pressure up to change it. No if, and, or but about it.

It is a political issue. Mail your congress person.