# Start Both parties agree on the the following definitions: [b]The web[/b] is taken to mean "any network where data can be potentially disseminated on a global scale" and "where data is electronically accessible such that the security vs. privacy debate comes into play." "[b]Privacy[/b] is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy "[b]Security[/b] is the condition of being protected against danger or loss." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security This accounts for physical securities (personal security, national security) and virtual securities (information security, etc.) We are not interested in the actual processes of securing data vs. privacy, as this makes little sense in the context of the debate. ---- Under what conditions, if any, does security trump privacy on the web? 1. The physical security of the society as a whole - including the individual - needs to be preserved. Against [b]established[/b] criminals and criminal organizations operating within the country, this duty is left to a state's police force or law enforcement agency. (Note that [i]intelligence agencies[/i] operate on interior and exterior [b]threats[/b], and are not considered police forces (for example: CSIS, CIA)) Digital networks allow criminals to perform traditional crimes with a speed and global reach that many police forces cannot match. Software for perpetrating and forensically cleansing (digitally) crimes is widespread and easily available. In addition, encryption prevents the extraction of information - even when it is available (REF#2 p. 410). So, in order for a police force to ensure the continued security of its populace, a mechanism to [i]digitally[/i] access private information must exist. The consequence of this is that, for the individual, the pressing question is "Whom do I trust?". Citizens of a totalitarian government may be wary of revealing too much information to authority lest they be corrupt, ill-intentioned or a [i]military[/i] force (as opposed to a [i]police[/i] force). Realistically however, not every government in the world is totalitarian (in which there is no allowed communicable private information). In less restricted societies, the question turns into "Whom do I trust more?" Individuals may opt to not trust judiciary authorities, retaining privacy, but must contend with the [b]absolute certainty[/b] of less effective security. 2. Government and corporate security must also come before privacy when an individual's right to privacy would violate the security of an nation or corporation. For example, potential bodyguards (Secret Service agents) for the US President and Vice President must forgo their personal privacy - as well the privacy of their family, friends and employers - to even be considered for a position (REF#1). Failure to implement stringent policies could result in security breaches; unwanted parties could "impersonate" legitimate parties with reduced effort. Furthermore, corporate "nondisclosure agreements" may allow monitoring of an employee's digital communication. This ensures the security of trade secrets, operations, and other information critical to business. ---- REF#1 "Single Scope Background Investigations" REF#2 Roderic, Broadhurst. "Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber-crime" Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 29.3 2006 408-433. 29 Jan 2008 REF#3 "PIPEDA" # End