Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
The concept of security has a longer heritage than that of privacy.So, in fact, security and privacy are very similar ideas. But today, security is a highly contested notion. And the danger with contested notions is that every serious problem gets presented as a security problem that requires the intervention of the state to fix – increasingly by covert means, and typically by more intrusive forms of surveillance (remember Edward Snowden's disclosures in 2013, about the existence of massive global surveillance by the National Security Agency).However, there is little evidence that mass surveillance actually prevents terrorist attacks and that giving up privacy results in greater security for citizens of a county. Indeed, greater security does not require the loss of privacy. It is time that nations move beyond the false fad of discussing the matter as one of security versus privacy and focus on implementing laws that take into account privacy rights as well as the indisputable need to fight terrorism.
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE