Tales from the Loonybin

In life, we must constantly make tradeoffs. In entering into “civilized” society, we sacrifice absolute control over ourselves for security. For example, one cannot kill another in our society. Should we allow one to kill another, it would become impossible to maintain security. So, we give up the ability to kill those who aggrieve us in order to gain the security it provides.

Of course, not all examples are so exciting as death and murder, and not all tradeoffs are so balanced. In the legal setting, this balance is referred to as proportionality. With respect to privacy, the concept of proportionality addresses the relative intrusion on an individual’s privacy to the advantages gained by such an intrusion. For example, it might be acceptable to allow a surveillance system capable of reading license plates at a customs control checkpoint, but not on normal freeways. At a customs control checkpoint, the intrusion of privacy may be an acceptable cost of ensuring an effective border security and customs operation. Using the very same system on normal freeways to improve traffic flow, by contrast, may be entirely unacceptable. The relative gains of having fewer traffic jams are far outweighed by the same privacy risk. In this way, the same loss of privacy, but in a different context, becomes more or less acceptable.

This is where paranoia comes into play. If you can somehow raise people’s fears so as to make them perceive a greater threat, then the value of an intrusion will be perceived to be greater. When people are afraid, they are more likely to sacrifice their freedoms and their privacy, so long as it can boost their perceived security.