There is such a think as 99% secure. I've been using the perfect security era as an analogy here (a period of a few decades in the 17th and 18th centuries where locks had been invented that were perfect - no one could open them without the key).
So imagine a perfect lock, like the Bramah lock, which eventually turns out to be pickable, but only by highly skilled lockpicks who have lots of time to do it and the right tools. Now, in almost 100% of cases, you're secure. No one's getting through your lock. Sure, there's a guy out there who could pick it. But it's highly unlikely that he'll happen to come and pick this particular lock - especially given that they only use him when the public interest deems it necessary, e.g. when there's been a murder or something similarly pressing.
Has your liberty really been significantly eroded because that slim possibility exists? I can see the argument that it has in principle, for sure, but for practical purposes I think you're in almost as good a spot as you were before, and the marginal loss in security is offset by the public good that's allowed for.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|