The Tempest Triangle

[Spiral Out]

Imagine an upward-pointing equilateral triangle. Imagine the word "Liberty" at the top point, the word "Security" at the lower left point and the word "Privacy" at the lower right point. This is the Tempest Triangle.

The first component, "Liberty", is to signify a particular level of the rightful freedom to engage in any given thought, speech and/or action.

The second component, “Security”, is to signify a particular level of the rightful protection from any given psychological manipulation, threatening speech and/or violent action.

The third component, “Privacy”, is to signify a particular level of rightful exclusivity to the knowledge and distribution of any given thought, speech and/or action one has (presumably "rightfully") engaged in.

The strength of any one component in the Triangle has an inverse relationship to the strength of the other two components. Therefore, absolute liberty would preclude security and privacy, absolute security would preclude liberty and privacy and absolute privacy would preclude security and liberty.

Given these truths, what is the best ratio of each component to the others and why? Or do you disagree with these truths?

[AnEboss]

I would say the triangle illustrates a point, but has a few problems with it.

First of all, it ignores the fact that the effect of security and privacy is very much dependent on the socio-political mechanism by which it is enforced. The how and why matters. Having a more secure society can be due to a variety of factors as can having an insecure one.

Freedom can only exist for a certain type of society that "craves" it. In a society of bullies no one is secure and no one in free. Society of live and let live pacifistic workaholics, no one bothers to test liberty so everyone can have it. I would recommend Kant's moral philosophy as a counter argument to this idea. Freedom, security, and privacy are not equidistant from each other, but always imperfect states of moral equilibrium. What we use the freedom for determines in part whether it is categorically applicable as a moral position.

[Siphersh]

Why do you think that any of those three are in an inverse relationship with one another? That seems counterintuitive to me. I would like to think that those three more or less go together.

[Misty]

Imagine an upward-pointing equilateral triangle. Imagine the word "Liberty" at the top point, the word "Security" at the lower left point and the word "Privacy" at the lower right point. This is the Tempest Triangle.

The first component, "Liberty", is to signify a particular level of the rightful freedom to engage in any given thought, speech and/or action.

The second component, “Security”, is to signify a particular level of the rightful protection from any given psychological manipulation, threatening speech and/or violent action.

The third component “Privacy”, is to signify a particular level of rightful exclusivity to the knowledge and distribution of any given thought, speech and/or action one has (presumably "rightfully") engaged in.

The strength of any one component in the Triangle has an inverse relationship to the strength of the other two components. Therefore, absolute liberty would preclude security and privacy, absolute security would preclude liberty and privacy and absolute privacy would preclude security and liberty.

Given these truths, what is the best ratio of each component to the others and why? Or do you disagree with these truths?

Ben Franklin - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." " There is no security without privacy. 'Those who give up privacy for security likely end up with neither. Liberty requires security and privacy." Therefore, in accordance with your OP, I would say they should have equal ratio. However, my own thoughts and the dictionary meaning of liberty, I say 100% liberty would ensure security and privacy.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I disagree with the premise that freedom, security and privacy are inversely correlated. Instead, I believe--to paraphrase the first man to call himself an anarchist, Proudhon--that liberty is the mother not the daughter of order. I believe the most secure and prosperous society is a free one. Massive systemic infringements on freedom, and battles for power between freedom infringing organizations (be they mobs on the streets or big governments with nuclear bombs) to be the biggest freedom infringer are what ruin safety and security, and it is in that warring process (be it a war between countries or a war like the so-called war on drugs) that privacy is most infringed.

However, the question asks us to assume the accuracy of The Tempest Triangle to answer. Even accepting the Triangle as a premise, the question seems moot.

For one to have the choice between the 3 options is liberty. One doesn't choose to be unfree. Politically speaking, that is. It's contradictory. To have any meaning, we must instead view the triangle as if we are deciding what we will allow someone else to have: will we leave another person to be free, will we invade their privacy presumably against their will to provide security to them (like hacking your daughters phone to prevent her from dating bad guys), or will we go and hurt them (thereby taking away their security) or otherwise sabotage their security (such as by picking the neighbors lock and putting up a notice of such so burglars can get in. So in situations we can see where a person can choose between privacy and security, but that is situational not inherent. But in no way can I see how providing liberty takes away from the other two. Trying to accept such as a premise seems to lead to contradictions. It's just too clear that liberty begets security, safety, prosperity and warlessness.

[Okisites]

Why do you think that any of those three are in an inverse relationship with one another? That seems counterintuitive to me. I would like to think that those three more or less go together.

I think, we can better understand the proposal if we can be able to compare between two countries, which have almost opposite situation to another, with respect to OP question, say USA Vs China, whereas in China there is a less Liberty, higher control and less crime and higher security, and very less privacy, than US. Let me tell you what I wrote here is according to how I view China and what I heard about it, and some preliminary internet search.




Please, I would like to know the difference between Freedom and Liberty, if anybody can briefly explain.

Thank You, Okisites.

-- Updated 17 Sep 2014, 15:45 to add the following --

I would say the triangle illustrates a point, but has a few problems with it.

First of all, it ignores the fact that the effect of security and privacy is very much dependent on the socio-political mechanism by which it is enforced. The how and why matters. Having a more secure society can be due to a variety of factors as can having an insecure one.

Freedom can only exist for a certain type of society that "craves" it. In a society of bullies no one is secure and no one in free. Society of live and let live pacifistic workaholics, no one bothers to test liberty so everyone can have it. I would recommend Kant's moral philosophy as a counter argument to this idea. Freedom, security, and privacy are not equidistant from each other, but always imperfect states of moral equilibrium. What we use the freedom for determines in part whether it is categorically applicable as a moral position.

I think the OP is suggesting that Liberty, Security and Privacy can very well go together, but cannot be absolute. There must be some Liberty sacrificed, some Security Sacrificed, and some Privacy sacrificed. They all are sacrificed to achieve the same, therefore they are not absolute.

I think what is talked about in OP, is about, if you want ABSOLUTE of any of these three, then it needed disregard of the remaining two by nature. Therefore the triangle represents they can go very well together, but only if all of them are sacrificed in some manners. So you have two options to say about each of them, which is, whether you have it or you sacrificed it. You should not select both because it will be complicated, in which case you have to explain, on what amount would you like to have one with the sacrifice of another.

I think equilateral triangle represents that there could be a balance between all these three, in which they are achieve through sacrificing them, in a proper manner, such that they will be in manageable and agreeable amount.

Thank you, Okisites.

[Khanya solvitt]

Somewhere I read that Freedom is doing what you will regardless of the Law, whereas Liberty is the freedom to do what you want within the Law (thus protecting the freedom or safety of others).

[Okisites]

Somewhere I read that Freedom is doing what you will regardless of the Law, whereas Liberty is the freedom to do what you want within the Law (thus protecting the freedom or safety of others).

Okay, I think its a big difference. Therefore I need to rethink about it whether my idea will still hold good with it or not. Thank you for your help.

[Lucylu]

Please, I would like to know the difference between Freedom and Liberty, if anybody can briefly explain.

Thank You, Okisites.

I will try! They are very similar so it is easy to be confused. For some reason English has used both the Latin word Liber meaning free and the German word Frei meaning free to make two different words which mean the same thing but are used in slightly different ways. It could be argued that everyone has there own definitions and that they overlap so it is always wise to ask. It could be an OP in itself!

Freedom is used in more informal, day to day use, as in 'I am free to say whatever I want'. Liberty would be used more in formal political or legal discussion, when talking about human rights and civil liberties e.g. My liberty includes the freedom of speech.

Free can be used to refer more to negative freedom and is used commonly as a verb and in terms of a person's physical freedom.

Liberty is a noun and is usually used to group all of our general freedoms together. It can also be used more to signify moral, legal or positive freedom.

[Siphersh]

say USA Vs China, whereas in China there is a less Liberty, higher control and less crime and higher security, and very less privacy, than US.

The USA doesn't have a particularly high level of freedom among the developed countries, and crime is exceptionally high in the USA.

If you look at a bigger picture:

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

There don't seem to be any positive correlation between freedom and crime at all.

Also, crime rate doesn't describe the citizens' security from the authorities.

This whole concept of freedom and privacy vs. security seems to me to be more or less specific to the USA. It sounds like doublethink in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

[AnEboss]

Why do you think that any of those three are in an inverse relationship with one another? That seems counterintuitive to me. I would like to think that those three more or less go together.

I think, we can better understand the proposal if we can be able to compare between two countries, which have almost opposite situation to another, with respect to OP question, say USA Vs China, whereas in China there is a less Liberty, higher control and less crime and higher security, and very less privacy, than US. Let me tell you what I wrote here is according to how I view China and what I heard about it, and some preliminary internet search.




Please, I would like to know the difference between Freedom and Liberty, if anybody can briefly explain.

Thank You, Okisites.

-- Updated 17 Sep 2014, 15:45 to add the following --

I would say the triangle illustrates a point, but has a few problems with it.

First of all, it ignores the fact that the effect of security and privacy is very much dependent on the socio-political mechanism by which it is enforced. The how and why matters. Having a more secure society can be due to a variety of factors as can having an insecure one.

Freedom can only exist for a certain type of society that "craves" it. In a society of bullies no one is secure and no one in free. Society of live and let live pacifistic workaholics, no one bothers to test liberty so everyone can have it. I would recommend Kant's moral philosophy as a counter argument to this idea. Freedom, security, and privacy are not equidistant from each other, but always imperfect states of moral equilibrium. What we use the freedom for determines in part whether it is categorically applicable as a moral position.

I think the OP is suggesting that Liberty, Security and Privacy can very well go together, but cannot be absolute. There must be some Liberty sacrificed, some Security Sacrificed, and some Privacy sacrificed. They all are sacrificed to achieve the same, therefore they are not absolute.

I think what is talked about in OP, is about, if you want ABSOLUTE of any of these three, then it needed disregard of the remaining two by nature. Therefore the triangle represents they can go very well together, but only if all of them are sacrificed in some manners. So you have two options to say about each of them, which is, whether you have it or you sacrificed it. You should not select both because it will be complicated, in which case you have to explain, on what amount would you like to have one with the sacrifice of another.

I think equilateral triangle represents that there could be a balance between all these three, in which they are achieve through sacrificing them, in a proper manner, such that they will be in manageable and agreeable amount.

Thank you, Okisites.

What I am saying is that the op with the triangle is misleading. True, it would be harder to have all three points of the triangle at once, but it is not theoretically impossible. It is only impossible if the conditions of human behavior are not stable. The conditions of behavior in an imperfect (not subscribing perfectly to universally accepted ideals) society, full of diverse and imperfect individuals, are always unstable with absolute liberty. Another result of this is that an absolute of any of the three "corners" is unstable just by itself. Absolute liberty is impossible because it precludes your ability to trample on the "liberty" of others. Absolute security is impossible because it is inherently dangerous. Absolute privacy is impossible because it is unenforceable without investigation. The only way these things can all exist in equilibrium is if people have perfectly consistent and stable behavior.

Arguing that "liberty" or "security" is not an absolute idea still doesn't get us all the way there because any social ideals by definition are categorical in nature even if not in practice. They can be imperfectly enforced or limited in scope, but they are still "universal" by their nature (that is universal within the scope of their influence). That's because ethical ideas are not owned by individuals. Again, they are proposals for states of moral equilibrium.

No matter what way you look at it, I think the triangle is oversimplifying and misleading, because (in my opinion, backed up by my understanding of western philosophy) it misappropriates the reason for the instability inherent to having all three at once. It's not that they are inversely related. It's just three times more impossible to have three absolutes than it is to have one.

[Okisites]

Please, I would like to know the difference between Freedom and Liberty, if anybody can briefly explain.

Thank You, Okisites.

I will try! They are very similar so it is easy to be confused. For some reason English has used both the Latin word Liber meaning free and the German word Frei meaning free to make two different words which mean the same thing but are used in slightly different ways. It could be argued that everyone has there own definitions and that they overlap so it is always wise to ask. It could be an OP in itself!

Freedom is used in more informal, day to day use, as in 'I am free to say whatever I want'. Liberty would be used more in formal political or legal discussion, when talking about human rights and civil liberties e.g. My liberty includes the freedom of speech.

Free can be used to refer more to negative freedom and is used commonly as a verb and in terms of a person's physical freedom.

Liberty is a noun and is usually used to group all of our general freedoms together. It can also be used more to signify moral, legal or positive freedom.

Thank You Lucylu for explaining. I think I now better understand the difference and whenever I say freedom I generally mean something like Liberty, but not perfectly liberty as I wanted to express all kind of morally justifiable and most important things in any individual’s life to be included in it, and not just legally expressed or allowed.

If you like to know exactly what I mean when I freedom, you can go here http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 25#p192740 where I expressed I expressed my definition of Freedom. At first, it sounds vague but afterwards I think I properly explained it. My freedom is mostly on human grounds.

Anyways, Thanks again. Back to the topic:-

say USA Vs China, whereas in China there is a less Liberty, higher control and less crime and higher security, and very less privacy, than US.

The USA doesn't have a particularly high level of freedom among the developed countries, and crime is exceptionally high in the USA.

If you look at a bigger picture:

http://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings_by_country.jsp

There don't seem to be any positive correlation between freedom and crime at all.

Also, crime rate doesn't describe the citizens' security from the authorities.

This whole concept of freedom and privacy vs. security seems to me to be more or less specific to the USA. It sounds like doublethink in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Most probably correct. What I actually wanted to say is that we need proper examples to verify whether the proposal in OP is correct or not. If we will not try to deal it with proper example, I think it will be futile, as we find ourselves dealing with vague terms like Liberty, Security and Privacy. For example:- Lets say if someone is asked with whether he believes in something like morally right and wrong. And he answer “NO”. And when asked by what he thinks whether abortion is wrong? then he said “No, I think it is right”. So in this example we first proposed idea in a vague terms, and then we asked it with proper example. Both the questions are about moral right and wrong in which we got conflicting answers.

So this is why I called for examples, so that we can properly understand whether the proposal in OP is right or not. As for now, I do not have examples to properly explain it.

-- Updated 18 Sep 2014, 16:10 to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


I think, we can better understand the proposal if we can be able to compare between two countries, which have almost opposite situation to another, with respect to OP question, say USA Vs China, whereas in China there is a less Liberty, higher control and less crime and higher security, and very less privacy, than US. Let me tell you what I wrote here is according to how I view China and what I heard about it, and some preliminary internet search.




Please, I would like to know the difference between Freedom and Liberty, if anybody can briefly explain.

Thank You, Okisites.

-- Updated 17 Sep 2014, 15:45 to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


I think the OP is suggesting that Liberty, Security and Privacy can very well go together, but cannot be absolute. There must be some Liberty sacrificed, some Security Sacrificed, and some Privacy sacrificed. They all are sacrificed to achieve the same, therefore they are not absolute.

I think what is talked about in OP, is about, if you want ABSOLUTE of any of these three, then it needed disregard of the remaining two by nature. Therefore the triangle represents they can go very well together, but only if all of them are sacrificed in some manners. So you have two options to say about each of them, which is, whether you have it or you sacrificed it. You should not select both because it will be complicated, in which case you have to explain, on what amount would you like to have one with the sacrifice of another.

I think equilateral triangle represents that there could be a balance between all these three, in which they are achieve through sacrificing them, in a proper manner, such that they will be in manageable and agreeable amount.

Thank you, Okisites.

What I am saying is that the op with the triangle is misleading. True, it would be harder to have all three points of the triangle at once, but it is not theoretically impossible. It is only impossible if the conditions of human behavior are not stable. The conditions of behavior in an imperfect (not subscribing perfectly to universally accepted ideals) society, full of diverse and imperfect individuals, are always unstable with absolute liberty.

I think I said we can have all the three at once, but with sacrificing all the three in some proportion, in a practical and real life level. In practical, human behavior never stable, and if cultures and beliefs are different then it will become more unstable. True absolute Liberty will only create frustration, confusion, disagreement and ridiculous situations.

Another result of this is that an absolute of any of the three "corners" is unstable just by itself. Absolute liberty is impossible because it precludes your ability to trample on the "liberty" of others. Absolute security is impossible because it is inherently dangerous. Absolute privacy is impossible because it is unenforceable without investigation. The only way these things can all exist in equilibrium is if people have perfectly consistent and stable behavior.

I agree. They all are impossible and undesirable by itself when they are absolutes. I think point is that when over emphasis is on one thing or right, it infringes the other right i.e. when you emphasize more in security, it will infringe the Privacy, When you emphasize more on freedom, it lowers the security, when emphasize on security, it lowers the freedom, and all the imbalance between these three.

I agree that all in their absolutes are bad and dangerous, that is why the problem.

Arguing that "liberty" or "security" is not an absolute idea still doesn't get us all the way there because any social ideals by definition are categorical in nature even if not in practice. They can be imperfectly enforced or limited in scope, but they are still "universal" by their nature (that is universal within the scope of their influence). That's because ethical ideas are not owned by individuals. Again, they are proposals for states of moral equilibrium.

Agree completely, and equilibrium is never achieve, that is why the problem.

No matter what way you look at it, I think the triangle is oversimplifying and misleading, because (in my opinion, backed up by my understanding of western philosophy) it misappropriates the reason for the instability inherent to having all three at once. It's not that they are inversely related. It's just three times more impossible to have three absolutes than it is to have one.

No, I think all the three can be at once, but with sacrificing all the three in some extent. In one way or the other, all the three, hamper other two directly or indirectly(I am confused about the related between Freedom and Privacy).

Certainly it is impossible to have not only the one but all the three at once in absolute manner, that is why the problem.

I think you better understood now.

Thank You, Okisites.

[Spiral Out]

What I actually wanted to say is that we need proper examples to verify whether the proposal in OP is correct or not. If we will not try to deal it with proper example, I think it will be futile, as we find ourselves dealing with vague terms like Liberty, Security and Privacy.

Although I have provided specific definitions for the three primary terms to be discussed (Liberty, Security & Privacy), I will take some time to create a sufficient example to support my thoughts in the OP. I may also perhaps fine-tune my definitions for even greater clarity.

I will post them at the earliest opportunity.

[Okisites]

What I actually wanted to say is that we need proper examples to verify whether the proposal in OP is correct or not. If we will not try to deal it with proper example, I think it will be futile, as we find ourselves dealing with vague terms like Liberty, Security and Privacy.

Although I have provided specific definitions for the three primary terms to be discussed (Liberty, Security & Privacy), I will take some time to create a sufficient example to support my thoughts in the OP. I may also perhaps fine-tune my definitions for even greater clarity.

I will post them at the earliest opportunity.

I am also struggling because of lack of clear examples. I will also try to come up with examples.

[Logic_ill]

Liberty, Security, Privacy. Let us say that these "primary terms" total 90.

Privacy is to Security: 70 to 10 Security is to Liberty: 10 to 10 Privacy is to Liberty: 70 to 10

In other words, Liberty 10 Security 10 Privacy 70

If you have privacy, no one knows what you are doing, so you also have liberty and security.

Actually the ratios are all wrong: If you have Privacy 90 you also have liberty and security but if you are a human being, you are alone in the world, which could rarely happen at least 100 % of the time because human beings need other humans to be born and nurtured for a while. The "rare circumstances" would have to include being the only one "standing" or the "lone survivor". Yes, because it is impossible under the other circumstances to have 90 privacy if you are human, which is why I came up with those crazy ratios in the first place. Maybe giving privacy an 80 and security and liberty each a five would have done...