Thanks for sharing the question. I agree with ''Security defends privacy & Privacy requires security.'' ''For me, privacy and security are really important. We think about it in terms of both: You can't have privacy without security.''

--Larry Page

Regards

Written thus seems a paradox ... and in fact it is.

I agree with Dr. Aparna_Murthy in reply my greetings

I agree with the second part "the privacy needs security" If enough security will give people privacy, defends privacy and other values.

Best reagrds

Aly R Abdel-Moemin

I think privacy is what people do not know about you, and if security works to protect you, in this case privacy is not kept.

Both of them are necessary for the human beings

We need to meditate about how angle we are looking.

If we are the Government: we have secrets and we the people get angry with Mr. Snowden.

If we are looking in the shoes of Brazilian and Germany presidents, we are happy to know the true exposed by Mr. Snowden.

If you are the lover of a married woman, you like that all people know it. But you do not like that the husband know.

The secrecy and privacy is relative as good and evil. Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs show for all that how cruel and sadistic the pigs are. The wolf is carnivore. Just it. The Piglets are evil.

Security of privacy is essential in a society. However, governments and corporate are so strong now-a-days that privacy is being hampered. They can take data of you for your security (security of society, not security of privacy). What can be done, if such data is mis-utilized. No legality can assure 100% security of data in hands of government and corporate; as it is also run by some persons/group of persons.

Government of India takes identity data (such as colour of eyes, finger prints etc.) for making national level identity cards i.e. AADHAR cards. It is good if such data is utilised well. But when it will be in a position of mis-utilisation, what can be done.

I think that before answering this question we should ask ourselves: why so many people feel today that security has come (almost) an antonym of privacy ?

Hello,

You define security as the protection of assets from harm or abuse.

Your privacy definition suggest privacy is one among all security objectives.

So let see:

For instance, Donald Firesmith (attached document) defined Privacy as: "the degree to which unauthorized parties are prevented from obtaining sensitive information."

He detailed Privacy as the "combination" of Confidentiality and Anonymity.

Moreover, Confidentiality is one security objective of the CIA model

Confidentiality is related to the threat class "Information Disclosure" from STRIDE.

So Privacy implies Security following the Privacy definition of D. Firesmith.

Defining privacy in terms of (security/privacy) requirements, existing threats and possible countermeasures for your studied system will help you to position yourself regarding security.

Hope it helps.

Have a nice day.

Forgive me for quoting from a piece I wrote for the Times Higher:

“I am now of the opinion that privacy has to be sacrificed for the sake of security. What matters most in times of crisis? That people won’t be able to find out who we are, where we are and when? Or that by accurate surveillance, by technologically sophisticated watchfulness and by cautious tracking of anyone

exhibiting suspicious behaviour, disaster can be averted, lives saved and misery avoided? It is a matter of finding the lesser evil. When the next multiple killing occurs, will the loved ones of those murdered be placated by the rationale that nothing could be done to prevent it since people’s right to privacy had to

be protected?”

Privacy and security are necessarily incommensurate - what 'protects' us all relates to the adequate transparency of governmental decisions about the balance between the two, and, necessarily, adequate democratic protections - to ensure the legitimacy of governmental actions. If 'privacy' is a 'right' - it is one conferred by society. The same applies to 'security'. Neither are 'natural' - they are to be established, fought for and maintained by open government and civil society.

See Iphofen (2016) ‘Better Safe than Sorry’ (Print headline) Online: ‘Safety is more important than privacy’ Times Higher Education, 28 April

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/safety-is-more-important-than-privacy

and Iphofen (2014) Ethical issues in surveillance and privacy, Chapter 5 in Stedmon A.W. and Lawson, G. (eds.) Hostile Intent and Counter-Terrorism: Human Factors Theory and Application, Aldershot: Ashgate. http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781472402103

As long as you are online, in the website, login to internet, broadband, you are subject to the risk of less privacy, less security and more worries in your mind. This is the nature of open online world. It is just like if you are walking at the street, nobody guarantee that nothing will harm you right? Yes, the police is there, the security guards are there, so what? remember, human has flaws, things that human created, has tons of flaws, weaknesses, including security weakness, privacy problems. So find the almost perfect solution and counter measure! you got the question! now provide the keys to open the door of research success! Jesus God blessing your research work. best wishes!

To me, information security refers to individual's protecting themselves against threats to information assets only and privacy is individuals' ability to control information about themselves.

Cybersecurity, on the other hand, is broader term that can be used when it comes to information, assets (not just information), people and processes.

They are same birds with different feathers

I agree with Dr. Aristidis Matsoukis and Dr. Dickson.

Emad

Sangeen Khan,

Thanks for giving your opinion that is related to Security is more vital.

Dear Kiran Grover,

security defends privacy as a sophisticated cell membrane (in biology) defends the cell's privacy. Also, privacy requires security, as the cell membrane has some (physiological) limits. Beyond the bounds, the specific[1] limits, there is no secured cell, no life for the cell(s), and the cells' society.

1. specific "security and privacy" conditions for each one cluster's scale, cell (either in biology or personal and a super-cell, society).

We should give up some privacy in return for greater security, i.e., balance

I raised a similar issue recently:

Should there be ZERO guns or a more control of guns by civilians?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_there_be_ZERO_guns_or_a_more_control_of_guns_by_civilians?

You may check some good answers there, too.