Slashdot Mirror
Spielberg on Privacy, Minority Report
Staring at Nothing writes "In this ABC News story famed Hollywood director Steven Spielberg voices some concerns over the current state of privacy and paranoia in a post-9/11 world. Some of Spielberg's recent movies, like AI and Minority Report have brought us haunting views of the future, but the present may be just as scary. He mentions software being developed to monitor "abnormal behavior" and concerns about originality being misconstrued as dangerous behavior." The story has some minor plot spoilers about Minority Report.
bastardizing something that Ben Franklin had said regarding the most basic of human freedoms
While looking through a quote book looking for that quote, I found:
"Since the general civilizations of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison
Rather appropriate to our current situation IMO.
I don't mean to come off too obnoxious, but it is pathetic to me that someone expressing such cowardice would sign his posts "A True American Patriot" (I know your sig refers to "Russian Radical" writer Ayn Rand, but still). So these assholes hit a couple of our buildings, and may hit more. I'm far more worried about "options being imposed on me" by the likes of John Ashcroft than any terrorist. Don't get me wrong, terrorists are a threat in a very real sense, but they can't take our liberties away - we can only give them away. The sad thing is people wrapping themselves in the American flag as they give them up without even a freakin' fight.
Freedom is nothing without security, because without security you cannot truly be free. Therefore freedom is dependant upon security, and for you to argue otherwise is nonsense. Our Founders understood this; just look at the Second Amendment for a fine example of how they saw the need for security as being paramount!
First off, there's a reason the first Amendment comes first. Second, there is no tradeoff between liberty and security - these are abstract constructs that only make sense in real world situations. In the real world, there may be a tradeoff between a specific liberty (my right to drive a plane into a building) and a specific aspect of security (my ability to go to planes and/or buildings without being incinerated), but to say "you can't have liberty without security" is nonsense. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of restrictions on liberty we are being asked to endorse under the banner of the "war on terrorism" won't do a damn thing to address any real security threat. I am all for taking away people's right to hijack airplanes or blow things up. But we're being asked to give up a lot more. To simply endorse a "no liberty without security" position is to say you're willing to give up any old liberty in order to create whatever damn illusion of security your leaders happen to be waving in front of your face at this particular moment.
I was as devastated as anyone by the WTC collapsing, but after all the smoke cleared, we were hit by 20 people, who killed far fewer people than we as a society openly sacrifice in cost-benefit analyses every time we build a new highway (not to mention deaths we tolerate as a result of the alcohol and tobacco industries), and they hit us in a scheme that was clever but that just about everybody involved has practically admitted that they should have seen coming. The people we've caught - Reid, Massaoui, Lindh, Padilla - these are some fucked up people, no doubt, but are these really people we can't destroy without turning into a police state? Are we so afraid of a bunch of fanatical and fucked-up twenty-somethings who light their shoes on fire that we're willing to throw the Constitution out the window?