
The False Trade-Off Between Security and Liberty - matt_morgan
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/security-liberty-terrorism-britain/412162/?single_page=true
======
Artistry121
"What if Congress had accepted the recommendation? Hardened cockpits would
have made impossible the 9/11 attacks in the form they took. If so, instead of
being grateful to the Gore commission, we today might well mock hardened
cockpit doors as a classic example of government waste—of looking in the wrong
directions for threats that never came. The better security works, the less we
appreciate the need for it. The more effectively we are protected against
harm, the less gratitude we feel to our protectors."

This argument would be much better settled if these were the measures adopted.
Instead we get the TSA. Regulations like "don't open cockpit doors" or "make
things bullet and knife proof" are much less intrusive and freedom-protecting
than the TSA or other behavioral traps.

~~~
wizao
These security measures can backfire too:

[http://time.com/3760424/germanwings-plane-crash-locked-
cockp...](http://time.com/3760424/germanwings-plane-crash-locked-cockpit-
andreas-lubitz/)

------
herbig
"It’s precisely to protect the rights of cartoonists like Charlie Hebdo’s that
governments deploy surveillance against potential terrorists."

This would be great if governments were surveilling only terrorists, instead
of literally everyone, including their own citizens.

The article makes not justification for its title "the false trade-off
betweent security and liberty." It only says it's ok because we don't hear
about the attacks that are prevented. That's not good enough.

~~~
slasaus
> The article makes not justification for its title "the false trade-off
> betweent security and liberty."

I think they make their point in the end:

> In the immediate circumstances, liberty and security can require trade-offs.
> But from any longer perspective, _security is the basis and foundation of
> liberty_ —a truth eloquently stated by another American president, Franklin
> Roosevelt, when he inscribed freedom from fear alongside freedom of speech,
> freedom of worship, and freedom from want in his great “Four Freedoms”
> speech of January 1941.

I think some sense of security is needed in order to fully exploit the
creative and innovative properties of liberty. In other words, just as much as
the Panopticon effect hurts freedom, experimenting and developing new ideas—
insecurity can hurt these properties as well so I do think it's a trade-off.

------
merpnderp
Given the ease with which many magazines and newspapers have managed to get
explosives and weapons through all the security checkpoints at major
transportation centers, the total shock the west was in during all the
different transitions of power and politics during the "Arab Spring", and the
complete lack of warning the West had for the terrorist attacks we've seen,
isn't it more likely that like many experts claim, very little if any
terrorist attacks have actually been stopped by all this spying?

~~~
justizin
In the US you are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a
terrorist, so I think you're onto something.

------
cryoshon
Well, that's one take on it.

"This resolution derives its emotional force from a broad sentiment among
British people that they are more monitored and controlled than were their
parents and grandparents, more harried and bullied. These feelings are amply
justified. Not since the age of the village stocks and the ducking stool have
people been as surveilled by their neighbors—or as exposed to public
humiliation."

Right. So largely, people believe they are more controlled than before. This
makes them unhappy, among other things. I guess somehow the author expects
this sentiment to be ignored for the purposes of "security" if we merely
divert blame from GCHQ to Facebook (a private entity). This attempt to derail
the thrust of the problem is debunked by the well-known fact that Facebook
collaborates extensively and exhaustively with intelligence organizations.
Facebook isn't identical to GCHQ, but it's certainly a major input into their
activities. The idea that community-based shunning is the primary oppressor of
people doesn't quite mesh with the ability for people to sequester themselves
among like-minded people more easily than ever thanks to the internet.

"By contrast, the security measures adopted by the British government to
protect its people from terrorism are reasonable, minimally intrusive, and
appropriate to the scale of the threat. They are not sacrifices of liberty.
They are bulwarks for liberty—bulwarks against the would-be totalitarians of
our time."

No. The security measures are part of a larger trend of oppressive behavior.
Remember when the UK banned certain kinds of pornography? That wasn't related
to "security"\-- it was intrusive, not necessary, and a sacrifice of liberty.
On that note, it doesn't support any security purposes to spy on what kind of
porn people consume, but of course they do it anyway (check the Snowden files)
because such information is a powerful tool for blackmail. Knowledge of this
kind of program completely invalidates any claims of mass invasive spying
being necessary for security.

~~~
linkregister
> the well-known fact that Facebook collaborates extensively and exhaustively
> with intelligence organizations

It's not well-known to me, can you give me any evidence besides (coerced)
participation in PRISM? Fulfilling U.S. federal and local warrants is a hazard
of business in the United States.

~~~
cryoshon
PRISM is the primary piece of evidence in support of direct collaboration, and
frankly I'd hesitate to call their involvement coerced. Aside from PRISM,
intel agencies have been mining Facebook for ages now, providing critical
data.

~~~
linkregister
Why do you hesitate to call their involvement coerced? Everything Facebook has
done post-revelation has been pretty combative toward the program. Facebook
has spent substantial time lobbying against SOPA/CISPA and related
legislation.

Facebook company officers even presented in front of Congress to protest the
U.S. government's surveillance programs (since it negatively impacts
business).

All I read from your comment is unsubstantiated speculation. What's the basis
of your assertion? Smearing an SV company on Hacker News shouldn't go
unchallenged.

~~~
cryoshon
[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/11/yahoo-
ceo-...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/11/yahoo-ceo-mayer-
jail-nsa-surveillance)

""He said after the news broke in the Guardian and the Washington Post about
Prism, the government surveillance programme that targets major internet
companies: "The government response was, 'Oh don't worry, we're not spying on
any Americans.' Oh, wonderful: that's really helpful to companies trying to
serve people around the world, and that's really going to inspire confidence
in American internet companies."

"I thought that was really bad," he said. Zuckerberg said Facebook and others
were pushing successfully for more transparency. "We are not at the end of
this. I wish that the government would be more proactive about communicating.
We are not psyched that we had to sue in order to get this and we take it very
seriously," he said.""

Mostly seems concerned about losing money from abroad, being transparent, and
getting better communications with the government.

[http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25952/56/](http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25952/56/)

Enough evidence of substantial intentional collaboration to form a lawsuit in
the EU.

Then there's the most recent flap about Facebook supporting CISA, which would
encode their relationship with the NSA into law.

~~~
linkregister
Your Zuckerberg quote literally supports my position and refutes yours.

Starting a lawsuit isn't evidence of anything. I could sue you for using mind
control on my cat. It won't mean that I have evidence or even standing.

------
slasaus
The article fails to argue that mass-surveillance is a required and
proportional way to counter the threats mentioned. I think instead we should
debate what level of suspicion should be required to form a basis to conduct a
surveillance on someone instead of the "we have to monitor everyone including
the innocent continuously" dogma.

~~~
Mickydtron
I actually had a hard time, early in the article, telling which side he was
on. Specifically, "liberties also cherished by free people...the right of a
nation’s citizens to be free of punishment by their nation except in
accordance with positive law applied with due process" seemed in complete
opposition to Cameron's statement that "For too long, we have been a passively
tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will
leave you alone."

If we want to have the right to be free of punishment as long as we obey the
law, then we absolutely should resist this level of government surveillance.

------
bakhy
just like the author claims that we do not appreciate the good consequences of
surveillance because, when it works well, it's invisible, i can claim the same
about it's negative consequences. e.g., if congressmen and -women are changing
their votes on intelligence budgets because some spy found out they hired a
prostitute some time ago and blackmailed them. indeed, when it works well, it
is invisible.

the core of the issue is limiting the spy's power, and giving them appropriate
oversight.

------
AnimalMuppet
If I understand this correctly, the claim is that the massive surveillance is
preventing deep, complicated plots like 9/11, so that what we get instead are
more situations where one person does a (somewhat) mass shooting. It's not
"mass" on the scale of 9/11, though - not even all of them put together are.
So in terms of people's lives, it's a net win.

And in terms of freedom to just get on with your life, it's a net win for most
of us... so far.

The problem is, if you give the government enough power to spy on people in
order to prevent terrorism, sooner or later someone might use it for other
than the intended purpose. And here the article's argument works exactly: You
don't know how much tyranny has been prevented by denying the government the
power to spy on citizens.

------
joesmo
This is a nice load of shit from a pretty well-accomplished bullshitter (he
almost made Bush look not-retarded) that really says nothing other than the
police/government/military can do no wrong and we should sacrifice everything
for security, even when many of the threats to security are made up.

He even manages to use a quote directed just against such people as himself
and his former boss: “We must especially beware of that small group of selfish
men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their
own nests.” Those selfish people are the real terrorists. The real terrorists
are the ones who started international wars without any basis. They are the
people who constantly continue to abuse the American people and enslave them
with both draconian laws and such bullshit drivel as this article. Yes, we are
aware of those assholes, it's just really hard to do anything about it when
the majority of idiots in the world (and especially in the US) buy the
bullshit sold in "articles" like this.

------
Mickydtron
Some of the examples given seem either unrelated or rather disturbing if they
are related. Specifically, the reference to Tim Hunt and Justine Sacco seem to
be there to promote a "Free expression and liberty are under attack!"
narrative, which is a seemingly true enough point, but hopefully not relevant
to the topic of counter-terrorism legislation. Should Britain have located and
arrested everyone who contributed to those stories blowing up? If not, then
why are these incidents being brought up in this governmental context?

Mob justice is antithetical to free expression, but is messy and complicated,
and governmental action is too blunt a tool to fight it with.

------
squozzer
Government rifling through our underwear provides only part of the
justification for the pervasive mistrust of government. Hand-in-hand with the
forced mass transparency of the proles has been the increasing opacity of even
mundane functions of government. It seems everything is done in secret
nowadays. Trade agreement negotiations, standardized test scores, you name it,
surely to protect "sources and methods."

------
bruu_
How are we to know what to support as citizens? What's worse, cyberterrorism
due to fundamentally insecure cryptography infrastructure, or physical
terrorism due to a lack of spying capability? I am marginally more afraid of
what terrorists can do with computers than what they can do with guns and
bombs.

~~~
logfromblammo
I'm pretty sure I could do more damage with one rifle and a handful armor-
penetrating rounds than with a bomb, without ever firing at--or even seeing--
another human. I expect that a network attacker can do 95% of that kind of
damage more remotely, but perhaps also more preventably, just using a
computer. I think I could probably even forget about the rifle, and just wreak
some havoc with just stuff that could be purchased at Home Depot, without even
a whiff of suspicion.

It's a really good thing that I know I'm rather dependent on all that
infrastructure for my easy lifestyle, and I have no good reason to go around
destroying any of it.

So what I fear more than anything is someone as smart as or smarter than me,
who has acquired individual motive to cause a huge amount of damage to public
infrastructure.

Blowing up a high-profile building full of people, or going on a shooting
rampage that leaves a bloody trail behind you, are good for getting into the
news articles, but save us all from that guy out to cause sheer financial
damage instead of human casualties. Soldiers are scary, but those guys that
sit back, dreaming up new weapons, are simply terrifying. [0][1][2][3][4]

You don't really want to watch angry, gullible young men with a grudge. You
need to watch out for that guy who can write "airliner = cruise missile; cost:
~$500" on a sticky note, then immediately move on to dream up some other way
to hurt you.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis)
[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Fieser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Fieser)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller)
[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle)

------
mcguire
This is a very confused set of remarks. I rather hope he lost the debate.

For one thing, neither the Tim Hunt nor the Justine Sacco cases have anything
to do with "national security", unless Frum is further going to argue that the
government has an interest in preventing the act of saying stupid things from
having consequences. There was not even anything criminal involved. The Le Pen
and Essex University events, while I don't particularly care for efforts to
prevent someone from speaking, were rather in the nature of the whole freedom-
of-speech thing. Protests do happen. And when he goes on to wonder "if British
thinkers, writers, and artists dread economic reprisal," I feel compelled to
point out that he's gone completely off the rails: if

" _We are gathered here today to discuss the state of liberty in the United
Kingdom—and the purported threat to those liberties from measures to promote
the nation’s security, especially against terrorism._ "

then the majority of his comments aren't even in the same county, much less
the building holding the debate.

Now, he does manage to touch on the actual topic when he says, "And if we
consider other liberties also cherished by free people—[...] the right of a
nation’s citizens to be free of punishment by their nation except in
accordance with positive law applied with due process [...]" but he
consistently fails to actually make any argument on that topic. Well, sort of.
Unfortunately, " _they_ do it, too, and worse" is not really compelling.

Now, I do get his side points. I was a system administrator for many years,
and if you want an example of a job that is only noticed when you dramatically
screw up, it is a fine one. And I'm not one to think that "security" and
"liberty" are in eternal and unforgiving opposition: I also get that
meaningful liberty is impossible without a solid base of security. (I also get
that Frum would disagree strongly with me about the details; given his little
attacks on anti-discrimination and environmental protection, we might have a
problem over the definition of the liberty to employ and to be employed or the
right to enjoy property.)

But I'm afraid Frum doesn't get that, in a free society, the answer to Abraham
Lincoln’s famous question: “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who
deserts—while I must not touch a hair of the wily agitator who induces him to
desert?” is a pretty solid "Yup." Perhaps followed by "Them's the risks if you
don't want to be the target yourself." You certainly can't yell "Fire!"
unnecessarily in a crowded theater, but if you're as confused about the
difference between a military threat, a criminal threat, a social or economic
threat, and perfectly legitimate disagreement as Frum, it's entirely too easy
and tempting to declare "Packing too many people into a single room is bad" as
a threat requiring a military response. Been down that road before, in fact.

If you don't buy that, consider the "Prevent" program he describes as "an
effort worth applauding". The linked article mentions,

" _But one of the biggest knocks to Prevent came when it emerged four years
ago that CCTV cameras in Muslim areas of Birmingham - 72 of them hidden - were
partly funded by Home Office counter-terrorism cash._

" _The loss of confidence and trust in police was enormous._ "

It shouldn't be a wild surprise that

" _Mr Khan said: 'Most young people are seeing [Prevent] as a target on them
and the institutions they associate with.'_"

And that is what is hard to reconcile with "the right of a nation’s citizens
to be free of punishment by their nation except in accordance with positive
law applied with due process".

------
wcummings
If the terrorist threat were as severe as we are led to believe, there would
be a _lot_ more terrorist attacks.

~~~
bruu_
One of the major points made in the article is that nobody hears about the
attacks that get prevented. It may just be that surveillance is very
effective.

~~~
cryoshon
Nah. Every time the FBI pushes someone into accepting their offers of bomb-
making materials, they scream about it from the rooftops as though they've
prevented 9/11 v2.0. Of course these are largely vulnerable or mentally ill
people who are also politically disgruntled.

Remember the Boston bombings? I sure do. The FBI had a line up on them before
the fact, then were too slow/stupid/whatever to prevent the bombs from going
off. To repeat: they had information in hand as a result of surveillance, then
still fumbled the ball.

At the core of these "security vs liberty" debates is usually three
assumptions which are fallacies:

1\. Complete security is possible, if only we give up our liberties (it isn't,
look at violence in prison populations)

2\. Complete security is desirable, so we should give up our liberties (it
isn't, because we'd be in prison)

3\. Giving up our liberties will have no unintended consequences (it does,
involving willingness to put new ideas out)

~~~
ekiru
Although I don't agree with any of those premises, that debate is not one-
sidedly poorly supported. A lot of the opposing arguments prove too much.

For example, a common remark in discussions on relevant topics are paraphrases
of that "those who would give up essential liberty" quote. Yet, those comments
appear much less frequently of discussions of other sacrifices of liberty for
the sake of security.

