That's not strictly true. Animals protect their privacy - at the very least, they work to hide their weaknesses. They do so to enhance their security. Displaying weakness can get an animal killed, either by tweaking the interest of a predator or getting it expelled from its social community. I saw an interesting example of this on television once. A dog that had just been spayed and brought out of anesthesia was active and appeared to be in no pain. She was then put in a recovery room with a hidden camera. As soon the humans left and the door was closed the dog curled up and quivered in pain - she stopped hiding her pain. The minute the door opened she perked up and acted as though she felt fine. She kept her pain private. Beyond that, other species protect their privacy in other ways. Many species hide their nests. Even animals know that privacy increases security.
A 40-year affair between the pair begins, and although nothing can keep them apart, nothing can get them together, to help them over the pre-Stonewall hill of shame in a part of the American landscape that suffers from mythological overload." [Art Index]
Only change the parts you wish to update.
When I think about these issues, I am drawn to analogize the situation to that of an animal in a zoo. Secure, perhaps. But at a significant loss to its liberty.
Then maybe we can finally be secure. Um, yeah.
Speaking of the perceived differences between "security" vs. "privacy", check out this blog post about the Smugmug photo storage service. The CEO of Smugmug attempts a slice & dice. Whew.
UK gov issued 250k phone tap licences in nine months
3. WMDs are not new. A modest team of well-trained marksmen with automatic rifles could kill as many people as died on 9/11 in just a few minutes. The terrorists know this. Do our governments?
Another thought struck me when I was reading your post.
This paper explores how Will & Grace, which has been heralded in thepopular press for its positive representations of gay men, situates the potentially controversial issue of homosexuality within sap and familiarpopular culture conventions, particularly those of the situation comedygenre.
London; Washington: Cassell, 1997.
This paper draws on feminist and queer theory to examine the liabilities of relying on these familiar situation comedy conventions, demonstrating how the program equates gayness with a lack of masculinity, relies on sexual tension and delayed consummation,infantilizes the program's most potentially subversive characters, and emphasisizes characters' interpersonal relationships rather than the characters' connection to the larger social world.
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, c1999.
2. Those who cede (or lose) Liberty often do not receive additional security in return. Prisoners have little Liberty -- and even less security than those not incarcerated; Romanian citizens traded improved security from street crime for badly reduced security against rapacious, tyrannical, and incompetent government agents.