It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we have freedom without privacy?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Can we have freedom without privacy? I don't know that the answer is so simple. What about the reverse: can we have privacy without freedom? Battle away!




posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Just a resemblance of freedom



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie

How free do you feel right now?

Most of us have smartphones that track our every location, credit cards which report to bureaus everything we buy, and the websites we visit get tracked by various companies in order to display the correct ads according to our browsing history.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie

I would argue that we cannot have freedom unless we have privacy, and any infringement of that privacy without specific reason to suspect the individual being surveilled, of some kind of crime, is a treasonous act.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Devil's advocate.

Is freedom overrated? Some who protest a lack of privacy have something to hide...I said SOME...LOL.

Freedom, what is it, really? The ability to have choice? To make a decision based on one's own determination? I suggest that it can never be taken away. Not really.

The consequences of that choice is merely sped up. The likelihood of escaping those potential consequences diminished.

Want real privacy? Go live in the 'bush', or outback or the Arctic. The hermit has 'freedom'. We are a social creature. I'll take the amenities over this 'freedom'....for now....


edit on 5-10-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

I have much less an issue with those circumstances than the government's intrusive behavior.

I voluntarily signed up for my phone and credit card.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I do not have the freedom to live in the bush. Freedom = free to act without consequence in all things, save for those things which infringe on others rights. If I were to go and live in the woodlands of Great Britain, and were somehow discovered, I would be arrested for trespass in all probability, poaching too I would imagine.

I see no reason why I ought to have to move nations simply to find freedom. This is my homeland, and upon it have stood generations upon generations of my ancestors. I should be free to live under my own recognisance, unless I am suspected of a crime, at which point any, and all scrutiny is justified.

I happen to believe that unless there is probable cause for concern, that a persons faults and triumphs ought to be his or her own to manage.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

When's the last time you could live in the 'bush' in the U.K.? Multiple centuries ago?

Someone has laid claim to your 'land' for a millennium. A bit late to point that out now.

That's why so many left to the Americas. I have a spare bedroom if you need it....



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Squidleepie
Can we have freedom without privacy?


Oh, of course. It's as easy as having privacy without walls.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes, many moons ago. However, we do not even get to live in brick and mortar with as much privacy as my grandmothers had during the Second World War, when there was a tangible, and constant threat from an actual military organisation, capable of launching air raids, bombardments by sea on our nation. Not like today, where there is an ambiguous threat, from a relatively disorganised entity which still think that a modified Toyota Hilux counts as a military vehicle.

The surveillance of the innocent is not an acceptable price, to ensure the guilty are punished, or to secure us against attack. They need to find a way to do their jobs without doing the terrorists jobs for them. Our liberty is what needs security, but any measure that seeks to protect our liberty by removing it is automatically invalid.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The question's a bit broad, but to respond to the question posed, the answer is no. There are some things by their nature that are adverse to freedom.

Security is another one. They're on opposite sides of the scale. The more of one you have, the less of the other you get.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Sigh, I get you.

Yet, how?

It's beyond me to come up with an answer for a reasonable alternative.

I supported the Patriot Act initially based on a history of putting aside some aspects of the Constitution in times of war and resuming the normal applications at a later date.

No longer.

That Act has been pushed far beyond it's original intent without apology by both sides of the aisle.

Either information justifying it is being withheld from us...OR, the intent is other than what is spoken..for me the jury is still out but leaning towards conviction.....



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

My angle on that is that both sides of the political divide in the US, had a hand in creating and enacting or protecting the Patriot Act.

None of them are there to represent the needs of the people, but to represent rival cartels of businesses and conglomerates, and measures like the Patriot Act are more use for controlling populations, than they are at allowing terror to be effectively fought against.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I know the position and am moving in that direction myself.

The only reason I brought the Patriot Act up was the similarity in the control mechanism of Privacy and the concerns about terrorism,

Both the U.S. and the U.K. have used the current system with some success in preventing further acts to some degree or another. I'm trying to be 'fair' about the issue and, again, at a loss to a workable alternative in preventing terrorist acts.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Squidleepie
Can we have freedom without privacy? I don't know that the answer is so simple. What about the reverse: can we have privacy without freedom? Battle away!


Can we actually have a meaningful discussion of freedom while the human right of informed medical consent is being stripped, politicians are literally selling your flesh and US LEO thugs are lawlessly enforcing it all?

Privacy? Why bother? They own your flesh, you are a slave.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Squidleepie

Can we have freedom without privacy? Why not? We did before 911.

Not a well thought out question I'm afraid.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Not a well throughout answer I'm afraid.

You think we had freedom before 9/11but not privacy, and post-9/11 it's different? Our rights have not changed since 9/11, but our privacy has. Your answer lacks clarification. My question is broad, yes, but clear.
a reply to: Azureblue



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Mm. Truth is, at this point freedom does not exist. Only to the extent of what the specified person's mind considers freedom. What you consider freedom is what freedom is to you.

To me, being yourself and having little worries and lots of hope and happiness to whatever extent you please is freedom. But that's me as a specified person. That's as far as I feel freedom goes.

Otherwise, in my mind freedom doesn't really exist. There's no way out of a lot of things and let's say we don't have boundaries, etc.. That wouldn't be freedom either, itd probably be a life of terror. You gotta find your own self thought freedom.

Feel free to reply to this comment, I'm interested on people's thoughts on this. I accept everyone's vision of freedom.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join