How much liberty are you willing to give up?

The idea of giving up my liberty – the freedom to exist, the freedom to safety, the freedom to express myself – is antithetical, to me. I am not willing to give it up and the security measures you mention are pointless. However what are we to do? It’s not like I can say, when traveling, ‘no, don’t do this to me’ – if I want to go someplace, I’ll have to follow the rules.

While I am no fan of the full-body scanning (I have yet to experience it, but the descriptions of it do not sound very appealing and it doesn’t seem all that necessary to begin with), there is a huge difference between full-body scanning at an airport to prevent terrorist attacks and attempted terrorist attacks that are so common these days and keeping a watch on people in their homes. The house is the private area. No one needs to know what is being done there. If someone is murdered or wronged, hopefully someone will find out, but this is not a fascist society and the government does not need to control us in the home.

Full-body scanning at the airport is not the same thing. This is going out into the public. This is entering into a government-controlled area, this is entering into a place where people are more likely to carry out attacks that can harm mass quantities of people.

I’m okay with the idea that when you use “public” infrastructure—including large swaths of the Internet—you are subject to some non-trivial amount of scrutiny.

I use Gmail; I love Google. Google stores all of my information and interactions with them and will give it to the government whenever they ask for it. Does that violate my “right to liberty”? I don’t think so, because Google and Facebook and my interactions on here—even if they’re anonymous, Fluther has my IP—take place in a space that is not “private.” It’s not public in the sense we’re used to, because I could be interacting while alone in my room, but in some ways it is similar to acting on public property.

That said, there should always be private spaces available—your home, your own computer—that are inviolate to government’s prying eyes. And there is a limit to how much public scrutiny I’m willing to tolerate; I’m not sure where that limit is but I can say from what I know about Great Britain that they’re over the threshold.

As for the full-body X-rays, I believe I’ve seen pictures of them. Not exactly scandalous. Personally I think Americans get too wierded out by nudity and sexuality (not that the X-rays are remotely sexy). If they can manifestly bring down threats from terrorism—something which almost all TSA policies fail to do—then whatever, it doesn’t really bother me.

I wasn’t meaning to suggest that airport screenings were the equivalent of 1984. The screenings are a certain point on a continuum, and I was wondering how far toward “security” people were willing to go.

Great answer, @Qingu!

I’m more concerned with the way I live then they way that I might die.

A little dramatic don’t you think? There are some people that have much less freedom than you and I, but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the little freedom they do have. What could you really do if some government body were to take over? You would fight and protest, but you’re not going to change the outcome yourself.

I have no problem with body scanners, especially knowing that the panty bomber couldve been spotted with one. It’s simply not a big deal. You’re jumping too far ahead in the future to compare privacy rights to Oceania lol.

@Blackberry Many experts didn’t think the underwear bomber would have been caught by the scanners.

Also, like I said in a previous answer, I’m not comparing the scanners to Oceania. I’m saying they’re a continuum. (The old slippery-slope argument.)

@Dr_Dredd Yeah we’ll never know for sure. As far as the slippery slope arguments, I’m not educated enough to know much about it, there’s a lot of guessing and analyzing and I don’t know when the line of paranoia starts, for example: What the heck is going on with China, the U.S., and Taiwan? China wants to invade them, but the U.S, already said they’ll defend Taiwan, and even sold them weapons and helos. What could come of this? I don’t know. There’s different outcomes, but I don’t know which one could happen. I will admit it is very intriguing to think about what could happen.

I’ve never heard that quote, but I don’t like it one bit.

First, I don’t like how he brought the issue of “deserving” into it. Eff that: everyone deserves; we’re all God’s children.

Second, I think it’s ludicrous to suggest that we haven’t given up some liberty for some security. I don’t have the freedom to murder you, and my restricted freedom on that point does provide you with security. That’s what society is all about… did Benjamin Franklin not read anyone’s state of nature?

So, like you said, the question is about finding a balance between liberty and security, but that’s a tough question to answer. I mean, my answer is “a perfect balance,” but that’s probably everyone’s answer. How do I qualify mine?

I, personally, am perfectly willing to have a person in a remote room look at an anonymous picture of my naked body for the sake of a safe airplane ride.

Also, I think it’s significant that this is an optional thing. It’s not like in order to live in society you have to ride in planes. If you don’t want to get scanned, avoid airports. If you work a job that requires riding on planes and you don’t want to get scanned, quit and find a new job, just like anyone else who suddenly doesn’t want to do something involved in their job. Luckily, we live in under a government that allows such a life-change.

For that very reason (optional), airport scanners are a massively far cry from 1984. Like you said, the security measures in 1984 were mandatory. No one could opt out of them or avoid them.

Frankly, I think personal liberty is overestimated. Obviously, I am not in favour of a 1984-type scenario; nor am I in favour of risking despotism, or living under a conservative theocracy; but personal liberty has run amok in North America. We forget we live in a society of people. Our so-called “autonomy” is a very bad joke. It’s important to talk about rights/liberty but responsibilities/safety are just as important.

I think they should use dogs. They are cost-effective, fast, and can detect thousands of different types of explosive material in microscopic quantities. Why don’t they use dogs more often?

To quote General John Stark, “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.”.

Great question. A definite NO!!! on a 1984 type society. We’re as close to that as I want to get, with security cameras all over the downtown area of every American city now.

For me, the scariest part of 1984 wasn’t the pervasive cameras. It was the way information and ideas were manipulated—the revisionist history, the creepy doublethink and thought control languages.

I think when it comes down to it, freedom of ideas and expression is more fundamental than “physical’ freedom. Though both are important.

^ Exactly. ^

Agreed, @ETpro. Aside from the fact that the continuous video surveillance is creepy, I’m concerned that it’s providing lots of useless information, making it difficult to separate the signal (actual crimes being committed) from the noise (video surveillance of people getting naked, etc.)

@Qingu Unfortunately, I see that same revisionist history and doublethink crap going on in American society today.

If I could give @Qingu two GA’s, I would.

@Qingu
The problem is when the nation is hypocritical and imagine the double speak and obfuscation is acceptable when it supports one agenda over the other. There can be no compromising with an approach which would use political sleight of hand or legalese to hoodwink on either side of the aisle.

@Dr_Dredd Sometimes I don’t know whether to welcome all the watching with open arms or arm myself to fight it. We had a bank robbery solved here recently. The robber had a mask on and was armed when he went into the bank. So the cameras in there didn’t offer much for police to go on. But there were cameras outside the bank watching for street crime, traffic accidents and the like. They showed the guy walking out the bank, and tracked him several blocks to his getaway car. They showed the make, model and license plate. Within two days, the police had their man. Both good and creepy.

Nope, I love my liberty. I’m more likely to take someone else’s than give up my own.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. If I had my way I would give up none of my liberty. If I were arrested for whatever reason even protesting if I were not convicted of some felony I would be outraged that my fingerprints would be stored into some data base. No giving up the right NOT to be searched in anything, my home, care, place of business, etc. Too many people are nansy pansy and scared sheep, to be safe from the “bogey man” the will allowed themselves to be smeared with dog poo and have a feather duster shoved up their………..well, you get the point.

@Hypocrisy_Central Underestimating your opponent only weakens your position. Nansy pansy? Not everyone conceives of giving up their liberty for the greater good* as being smeared with feces and raped by a duster – some people think of it as a positive thing, thus aren’t afraid of it at all. Just because something is hateful to you doesn’t mean it’s necessarily hateful for anyone else – different people are just that, different; so, when you see someone making choices you wouldn’t make, it’s pretty stupid of you to assume you understand their motivations. (Really, the simple fact of them doing something you wouldn’t should point out to you that you don’t understand their motivations.) Fear? What a joke. If I had to choose, I’d say it’s your so-called “liberty” and “autonomy” that’s fear-based… of course, I’m not saying it is, because what do I know? But, whatever your reasons for wanting it, I do think it’s a destructive illusion. (And I don’t think that because I’m afraid of any bogeyman.)

*Simplification

The problem is that the majority of our liberty that we are asked to rescind neither makes us safer or more secure but it will be exploited by someone at one point so the loss of civil liberty by incremental degrees is a far greater danger. The idea of a 1984 does not happen overnight. You can cook a frog quite simply by slowly raising the temperature of the water until he’s boiled alive in his own comfortable bath.

@nicobanks ” Nansy pansy? Not everyone conceives of giving up their liberty for the greater good as being smeared with feces and raped by a duster – some people think of it as a positive thing, thus aren’t afraid of it at all.”* I guess maybe the words I used was unclear but I am not for the government doing ANY poking, peeking, or snooping.

@SeventhSense I understand what you are saying with the frog cooking anecdote, and the reality of frog behavior is really neither here nor there to the intent of that old wives tale, but the truth is throwing a frog in boiling water will kill it, but slowly heating cold water will not work. The frog, even though it is a cold blooded animal, will sense the water getting uncomfortably warn and move to cooler lodgings. http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

It is difficult to debate policy today because it is so common to view every question as if there are only two extreme possibilities and nothing else. The truth is that, other than psychopathic criminals, we all give up a fair number of liberties in order to live in a free, safe society. We can’t kill anyone we want. We can’t just take what we want if it isn’t ours. We can’t kick the door down and move in to any house we like the looks of. We accept a long list of constraints on total liberty to avoid anarchy.

We also have a large block of liberty we do not want to concede. Very few Americans will argue for repealing the Bill of Rights, for instance. When we were faced with a new threat, say the advent of nuclear weapons, we did have to grapple with policy decisions that traded off absolute liberty against security from nuclear holocaust. @Dr_Dredd‘s question seems a legitimate one, worthy of discussion and we face growing threats from terrorism.

@Hypocrisy_Central “I am not for the government doing ANY poking, peeking, or snooping.” I understand that, you weren’t unclear at all. What I was responding to was your argument that anyone who IS for those things is for them because they’re afraid. I’m not speaking for everyone, but for myself and people I’ve spoken with: your argument is wrong and, frankly, offensive because you’re effectively saying our reasons are illogical and weak. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re weak, fearful, or stupid.

@ETpro
Ok maybe it’s an old wives’ tale but the point is as we surrender more and more of our civil liberties we are slowly conditioned to think that it’s normal when it’s not. Our personal autonomy is being increasingly compromised to serve the government when the population should be served by their elected officials.

@SeventhSense Yes. I wasn’t trying to throw cold (or slowly heated) water on the idea that preserving our civil liberties is important—it is of great importance. There are times when it makes sense to limit some liberties. For instance, during WWII, it was common to require all homes to have blackout curtains and use them whenever the air-rad sirens sounded. The curtains were fully opaque, preventing any interior lighting from being visible from the air. One family not liking the idea of lowering their air-raid curtains could have lead to a whole town getting blown sky high. So there, it made sense. And the requirement was dropped as soon as the war ended. But we should always have an open, thorough debate about the risks and benefits of any new limit on civil liberties before deciding the matter.

@ETpro
Yes and military advances and paranoia actually drives a lot of helpful technology but think of how much anxiety and wasted years could have been preserved if some had only stood up to the idea of stop drop and cover back in the 50’s. No kids, you will not be spared from a nuclear holocaust under your desk and the shelter will probably only delay the inevitable and prolong an agonizing death. If only they had adopted a policy of “just don’t tell the public”.

@SeventhSense Ha! I was in elementary school when that started and I can assure you we knew how silly it was. We all knew the joke about bending over, grabbing the back of your knees, and kissing your ass goodbye. Of course, that time was the heyday of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who took cowardice, paranoia and fear mongering to previously undreamed of plateaus.

Until of course it was resurrected under the previous administration.

@SeventhSense That is so true. And Republicans seem to be honing their skills at it to see who can top McCarthy.