Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Privacy vs Security
Transcript of Privacy vs Security
Ways of knowing
How do we measure the value of privacy over safety in a society?
When balancing privacy and security, it is more important security, but without sacrificing too much privacy. A big decrease in privacy wouldn't be good, even if we trade it for security.
Link to the RLS: By the decrease in privacy, security has been boosted, and people we aggressive towards, but as they reason more about this, they might change their minds.
Other RLS: A country spying on another countries, parents protecting their child.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Alicia Garza, Pablo González
US government spying its citizen
Edward Snowden, Ex-CIA Technical worker revealed that the US spies its citizens.
Leaked information about government data collection programs.
The CIA keeps phone records, emails, sms messages, etc. of its citizens without them knowing, in order to prevent terrorism.
He is considered as America's most consequential whistleblowers
"I'm willing to sacrifice my life because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
Privacy vs Security
Kant's perspective -privacy above security because no life is more valuable than other, making no exception or preferences for example spying some but not everyone. By having more privacy, we feel more secure (emotion), happier.
Utilitarianism's perspective- security above privacy, because if you are safe you are happy, and without security is impossible to be safe and happiness of the majority comes above everything example preventing a terrorist attack.
Is it ethical to have greater security and less privacy?
It is ethical to have more security if privacy is not sacrificed in order to do so.
How do we balance privacy and security?
Ways of Knowing
Through emotion, we can know that people would be scared without security, but without privacy, people would still feel scared, even with security, since other people would know everything about them. This thought is more instinct oriented.
By reasoning, we can deduct that more security is the wisest choice. People would be safe and they would face no harm, since they have security to protect them in exchange of their privacy. This thought is more reason oriented.
Having no privacy would make our conscious different (in a bad way)
By having no privacy, anyone could know everything about that person, that would make that person feel unsafe, and act different.
By having more security, people would be safer, making their conscious better than before, since they don't have to worry about danger.
Having no privacy nor security would change how we act, how our mind act, our psychological health.
By using language we can know the effect the different ways of communicating information can affect the reaction of the society putting in harm the security of the people
Some questions about this situation are:
How effective are the security programs ?
What caused the government to do that?
The difference is emotion being instinctive, and reason being something with which we are consciously involved.
Ways of Knowing:
Areas of Knowledge:
Does every moral judgement depends on the circumstances?
Why is the study of ethics important?
Should we consider the action or the result in coming to an ethical judgement?
Are there any objective ethical rules?
How emotions interfere with how we view the world?
Where do emotions come from?
How do we feel them?
To what extent can we control them?
What relationship do they have with reason?
To what extent can we trust decisions that have been made using reason?
What fallacies can arrise when reason is not used properly?