Privacy Rights vs National Security, which is more important?

MayCaesar

I do not think either is important. The concept of "privacy rights" implies that people are not allowed to receive free information as long as it concerns an individual who disapproves of it, which really is incompatible with the concept of human rights in principle. "National security", on the other hand, is incompatible with the idea of individual sovereignty; "nation" is an arbitrary social construct, and there is no security to speak of that should apply to it as a whole.

In my opinion, it is most important that individuals do not have their basic rights infringed upon by others, under any circumstances. This is a good starting point to build a political system from. If this one aspect - supremacy of the free individual - is taken as an axiom, then everything else that will be derived from it cannot be too bad.

YeshuaBought

Privacy is more of a right. That's why the 4 Amendment forbids unlawful search and seizure.

ZeusAres42

Well, national security is very important. That is pretty much a given. It is thanks to national security measures since the attacks on the US twin peaks and London train attacks that thousands upon thousands of terrorist plots have been thwarted.

It is thanks to national security that your child hasn't been blown to pieces because of terrorist attacks.

Furthermore, if you want privacy then don't expect to use free sources and have complete privacy. This somewhat audacious. If you want total privacy then pay for it!  Rather than use something for free and then bi*tch about its privacy policy.

There is, of course, an open-source alternative but at least if you are paying then someone is liable for any data protection complications.