RE: Big Brother is Watching You - Security without Freedom?
I think there are two sides to the story. We expect and demand that our government protect us. After 9-11 the nation asked why didn't we catch this beforehand? We wanted justice, we wanted our government to stop the next-attack, we wanted to feel safe. Everyone wanted it. I know people in three-letter agencies who were severely distraught and feeling guilty like they let down the American people. They felt they could and must do better. I like that.
On the other hand, privacy is hugely important and seems like we are losing it (or giving it away) a little bit every day. This can have catastrophic effects. There are brutal examples scattered throughout history. This is why the EU is so proactive and sensitive on preserving privacy. They remember the atrocities of WWII and the subjugation of people.
Both privacy and security are needed. The important part is to not think it is a binary decision, one or the other. The options are not absolute. We want both privacy and security in reasonable amounts to coexist. Ultimately we can have both, the key is to find the right balance.
I think the reason for the lack of balance is the media and general public lacks risk literacy. I noticed during the encryption debate around Apple this year that they avoided talking about how the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is lower than dying in a car crash, it's so exceptionally low in fact that more people get struck by lightening. And the scenarios where terrorists use unbreakable encryption is even lower probability, yet the government and politicians tried to make it seem like ISIS and all sorts of terrorists are using encryption which can't be broken by the FBI.
And the same irrational fear of digital currencies is being spread. The idea that terrorists are attracted to Bitcoin, and that idea that everyone involved in digital currencies or using it must be monitored, it's again a level of paranoia not based on any statistics released to the public. Public statistics released indicated that digital currencies aren't much of a risk and aren't associated with terrorism, but the media and propaganda seem to direct lawmakers more than statistics.
In my opinion, if America makes it's security policies based on statistics, on the data, and not on emotions, then we can have a better balance. Yes in some cases it might be necessary to have measures in place just in case terrorists switch tactics, but it doesn't mean ordinary citizens have to be given stigmas just because they use Bitcoin, or encrypt their phone.
Unfortunately, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) still rule most discussions around risk. Realistic conversations are a rarity, but many of us in the industry are continuing to educate and strive to facilitate rational discussions. It is an uphill battle, but a worthy one.
That possibly willful lack of understanding was the main topic of John Oliver's interview (in Russia!) with Edward Snowden, linked here. Oliver proposes using dick-pics as the way to cut through the jargon to the real point of the argument.
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@plotbot2015/oc-book-review-the-snowden-files