Your logic is flawed, simply because of this: None of the Freedoms relevant to this discussion are required to close your curtains, wear clothes, or whisper... that is your privacy, and OK, but you could have all of that without freedom, easily enough. Just because privacy and freedom are both desired along similar lines of thought, does not make them entwined. They are separate and, as i mentioned in another post, it is quite impossible to have both in full.
The problem with Freedom is that it gives people the Freedom to complain... I personnaly think that, ultimately, Freedom and Privacy are not only not the same thing, but they are mutually exclusive in under a modern Republic. The government can grant you a crapload of Freedoms (speech, the press, etc.), but then they'll take it as their obligation to ensure that those freedoms become maintained. What then happens is what we see now, people sacrifice the right to private thought for what they've already chosen, public freedoms. The US Government, for example, ideally will never stop you from standing in a park and talking about how corrupt and unfair the US government is. However, to protect your ability to do this, they have to enforce lots of laws that will prevent you from getting shot while doing this. To do this they have to regulate who can have guns, what kinds of guns they can have, and when they can legally use them. Another example: The US Government grants it's citizens the right to publish whatever written words they want, saying whatever they wan. To ensure this freedom is maintained, they have to enforce laws preventing people from destroying the paper you print on, or burning down the house that you print out of. The point i'm trying to make is this: Governments like the US and, from what I can tell, most of Europe, put into affect laws that will make sure that they know everything, so that they can best ensure your freedoms. The result is this: you have the right to print anything, and the government has the right to read it. you have the right to say anything, and the government has the right to hear it. you have the right to assemble, and the government has the right to send people to assemble with you. In the end, and probably too late, people will realize that, to ensure your personal Freedoms, your government has to sit on your shoulder, protecting you. If you have a government focused on providing and protecting individual freedoms, by God, that's what they're going to do.
Look at it the other way around, though. Imagine if we placed Personal Privacy at the top of the list, with Freedoms coming in a close (but ignorable) second. Then, to protect your right to not let anyone know what you're doing, the government would have to do whatever it could to make sure that nobody can read your emails, or find out what sites you visit online. This means establishing and enforcing strict guidelines that have to be met for internet access, so that the Government can be sure you're not going to spy on anyone. Do they take any personal information in this? Of course not, that would violate your privacy. As a result, they would have to restrict what you can visit. After all, if there are only 5 sites available for you to look at, nobody is going to know which ones you visited, and the government will know that you aren't looking at anything that would violate someone else's right to privacy. This "protection of privacy" would downward spiral until you couldn't have windows in your home, for fear of someone walking by and seeing you without your consent. Eventually, even, you would not be able to speak, for fear of someone you don't expect hearing your thoughts or ideas, thereby violating your privacy.
There is a point to all of this.
A good government, concerned about the people, will balance Freedom and Privacy. A bad one will emphacize one or the other. If you live in a democracy, elect the representatives who will maintain that balance.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic is flawed, simply because of this: None of the Freedoms relevant to this discussion are required to close your curtains, wear clothes, or whisper... that is your privacy, and OK, but you could have all of that without freedom, easily enough. Just because privacy and freedom are both desired along similar lines of thought, does not make them entwined. They are separate and, as i mentioned in another post, it is quite impossible to have both in full.
The problem with Freedom is that it gives people the Freedom to complain... I personnaly think that, ultimately, Freedom and Privacy are not only not the same thing, but they are mutually exclusive in under a modern Republic. The government can grant you a crapload of Freedoms (speech, the press, etc.), but then they'll take it as their obligation to ensure that those freedoms become maintained. What then happens is what we see now, people sacrifice the right to private thought for what they've already chosen, public freedoms. The US Government, for example, ideally will never stop you from standing in a park and talking about how corrupt and unfair the US government is. However, to protect your ability to do this, they have to enforce lots of laws that will prevent you from getting shot while doing this. To do this they have to regulate who can have guns, what kinds of guns they can have, and when they can legally use them. Another example: The US Government grants it's citizens the right to publish whatever written words they want, saying whatever they wan. To ensure this freedom is maintained, they have to enforce laws preventing people from destroying the paper you print on, or burning down the house that you print out of. The point i'm trying to make is this: Governments like the US and, from what I can tell, most of Europe, put into affect laws that will make sure that they know everything, so that they can best ensure your freedoms. The result is this: you have the right to print anything, and the government has the right to read it. you have the right to say anything, and the government has the right to hear it. you have the right to assemble, and the government has the right to send people to assemble with you. In the end, and probably too late, people will realize that, to ensure your personal Freedoms, your government has to sit on your shoulder, protecting you. If you have a government focused on providing and protecting individual freedoms, by God, that's what they're going to do. Look at it the other way around, though. Imagine if we placed Personal Privacy at the top of the list, with Freedoms coming in a close (but ignorable) second. Then, to protect your right to not let anyone know what you're doing, the government would have to do whatever it could to make sure that nobody can read your emails, or find out what sites you visit online. This means establishing and enforcing strict guidelines that have to be met for internet access, so that the Government can be sure you're not going to spy on anyone. Do they take any personal information in this? Of course not, that would violate your privacy. As a result, they would have to restrict what you can visit. After all, if there are only 5 sites available for you to look at, nobody is going to know which ones you visited, and the government will know that you aren't looking at anything that would violate someone else's right to privacy. This "protection of privacy" would downward spiral until you couldn't have windows in your home, for fear of someone walking by and seeing you without your consent. Eventually, even, you would not be able to speak, for fear of someone you don't expect hearing your thoughts or ideas, thereby violating your privacy. There is a point to all of this. A good government, concerned about the people, will balance Freedom and Privacy. A bad one will emphacize one or the other. If you live in a democracy, elect the representatives who will maintain that balance.