There is a happy equilibrium. As technology gets better, less freedoms will have to be infringed on. Facial recognition software is improving as computing power and software improves....
Hmmm...some people say that the tracking chips in the national drivers licenses are an infringement on privacy...I agree but I also see the other side of the story...how many lost or endangered people can we find with that?...
It is REALLY hard to think of everything and compromise.
When facial recognition software is perfected, people will modify how their face looks with prosthetics...and so on and so forth.
"I told you so" bragging rights? I'd do it for that, tell me you wouldn't
__________________ If you dont like Frenzal Rhomb, your a whore!
I am aware that "your" should be "you're," and while I know I should change it as not to offend the grammar fans around the boards, school always said not to bow to peer pressure so it stays as it is
What rights are being taken away? I'm not saying you're not losing rights. I want to know what sortof rights you think we're losing, and what makes it worth jepordizing the lives of your family and friends.
Because frankly, my life hasn't changed much pre and post 9-11.
maybe one day youŽll be in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up in a very small cell, and get asked questions you cannot answer get your past dug up and inspected and lets face it everyoneŽs done something daft in their past.
Torturing isnŽt allowed in the sense of the NaziŽs "cutting bits off" and all that horrific stuff. But there are other unpleasant techniques which are readily used. Sleep depravation, being forced to sit in odd positions for long periods and other "borderline" techniques.
The best argument for these national security based measures is that "if youve got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". But if the government in charge of all these measures doesnŽt like you for some reason, maybe like that Kelly bloke who was unearthing the WMD lies, youŽll get bumped off!!
Gender: Unspecified Location: Syrian Arab Republic
In my opinion human rights must be protected but in any case national security issues are more important . There should be no compromise on national security.
Re: Re: What's more important:- national security or human rights
China, America, Russia, the other fairly major powers in the world, where dictators are, in christian countries, in Islamic countries, I could go on, but instead I'll just say this: Every place where fanaticsm (is that a word?) has taken over, whether by money, greed or religion, or anything else.
i think you would be angry and would want justice. let me tell you that in the near future, this sort of behaviour will be permitted more often and there wont be a damn thing you can do.
Then what you going to do? Say, 'oh well i didnt get affected at the time, i wasnt aware enough to understand what was happening'
So tell me what are you going to do when a certain situation in the new world effects you, and your powerless to do nothing at all.
Consider the cosequences for the future, and look where we are heading
__________________
"How about this? Shut your mouth...Or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you."
Last edited by Deano on Nov 25th, 2007 at 06:36 PM
I think what is funny is that "national security" tends to be more for major cities and the such. Terrorism is not gonna extend to Buckunham, AL so why would they care? Then again, they do not have a voice on the national stage.
In terms of a complete popular vote, I would almost certainly say human rights are more important.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
I have never liked that people see national security and human rights (I am assuming here you mean Individual rights) as polar opposites.
The only reason why we should have national security is to defend individual rights. In this frame of thought, they are both tools to arriving at the same end, namely the protection of individual liberty.
So, to reply more directly, the actions taken by ANY government in order to repress individual rights is AGAINST national security. Why? Well, lets look at Mr. Bush. He has repeatedly abused individual rights for reasons he justified as being in the interest of national security. There are 2 main groups that he has oppressed, foreigners and domestics. With regard to the foreigners, removing their individual rights has only managed to create more enemies for America, and to harden their resolve. There is no inhumane treatment that will destroy the will of people to fight America. With regard to domestics, the continued oppression (wire tapping, etc.) and the silencing of descent has polarized the American political scene. The biggest threat to national security that this poses is that the people of America are (rightfully) skeptical and unwilling to follow the president on more "national security" ventures. While immediately this is ok, suppose war (or other military action) with another nation were necessary (like Iran or Saudi Arabia). People will be less willing to support it, and thus it may never be done correctly. Another example of this may be Iraq. By misleading the public and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis the government has destroyed support for maintaining the occupation of Baghdad, even though (and admittedly it is Bush's own fault) it may be in the best interests of American national security for them to stay the course (though not prior to invading, and recent events in Iraq should make people optimistic of the Iraqis ability to self govern responsibly).