11, 2001 terror attacks over the years has amounted to a slow erosion of awareness and resistance to Big Brother’s watchful tech eyes and ears. Would you vote for total surveillance, for instance, if it would stop drunk driving? But we as a society in the United States did not make that decision because no one ever asked us to. Yes, society needs to weigh the trade-offs required to fend of terrorism in an open discussion. But they also have 100 percent invasive oversight.ĭo we really want to live like that in the United States and in other democratic countries?Īmericans by and large won’t want to lose their hard-won freedoms - not in a false trade-off like this one. The North Koreans appear to have 100 percent security, sure. citizens want to live in a North Korea-type of total spy vs.

The Boston bombing happened although the main perpetrator was known to the authorities. Terror is a fact of life as are car accidents on freeways, earthquakes in Silicon Valley and tornadoes in Oklahoma. In other words, there will never be 100 percent security so there doesn’t have to be 100 percent invasion of privacy, either. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society … (but) there are trade-offs involved.” President Barack Obama told reporters at a press conference about the PRISM debacle.

–”You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” U.S.

Obama prism