• Shanmugha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Not exactly, but security as in “let us pass a law that makes end-to-end encryption in messengers illegal” can go and fuck right off

  • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Privacy is a part of security. There’s more to security than just privacy.

    To give an example, telling a friend where you’ll be if you go on a date is sacrificing some privacy for security.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They can be exclusive too. If you run a public server in your DMZ, but keep your personal information behind your firewall, the public server is not secure but you are still practicing good privacy.

  • Sunsofold@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Never heard of those two being opposed.

    The trade-off of security is widely known to be convenience, not privacy.

    • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Consider all the governments currently trying to pass dangerous, invasive, anti-privacy, anti-encryption laws in the name of “safety”. I think that’s what the OP is talking about.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s overlap but they are different concepts.

    Security is about protecting all assets, tangible or not. Privacy is really about protecting personal and/or identifiable information.

    Security is a part of privacy.

    For example, you may block cookies in your browser. That is a privacy measure, but not really a security measure.

    • Dran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You say that right up until a tracking cookie links some accounts together that otherwise weren’t and some nut job buys your data from a data broker and comes to your house to kill you.

  • poccalyps@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s not applicable to individuals. Think of society as the whole. I want access to encryption to protect my tax files. Pedos want encryption to pass illicit pix. As a society, should we pass laws that support encryption (privacy), or laws that restrict encryption (security).

  • Zak@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Both security and privacy are forms of control. This can be confusing, but there is a difference. I think of it like this:

    Security is your control over who can access your data. If someone is accessing your data after you’ve tried to prevent them from doing so, that’s a security breach. You’ll need to improve something on your end to fix it.

    Privacy is your control over what people and companies can do with your data once you’ve granted them access to it. This one can be harder to fix when something goes wrong, and it can mean anything from adjusting some settings that you didn’t know existed to changing who you vote for in government elections.

  • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s only weird until you realize they aren’t talking about your “personal” security. They couldn’t care less about you.