Not GP, but security refers to the protection of the system, while privacy refers to the protection of information.
So you need to protect the system to protect the information on it, but there are also sometimes trade offs between security and privacy when you offload some system protection by giving away some information to another party. For example SmartScreen with Microsoft, and Safe Browsing with Google Chrome.
elesiuta had some great commentary I agree with, but to add my own response:
> IMO these are all 'security' related, just personal security (which is what I define privacy as).
I think this level of reduction becomes problematic in scenarios where security>privacy advocates talk about security in the collective sense.
Playing devil's advocate to highlight where I believe this reduction of security->personal security->privacy breaks down: A man borrowed many books from a library on the topic of explosive chemistry. That man later was involved in terrorist acts.
This is a situation where one could argue that less privacy for people in relation to their library borrowing habits may have resulted in greater security.
This is an example of an event that has happened, and while I hate the cliche of terrorism in debates about privacy and feel this particular point can be argued, it's exactly these kinds of scenarios that security>privacy advocates use to push for fewer privacy protections across large groups of people.
I agree its a good counter-point. I would argue that we shouldn't give our decision making power to decide what is and isn't best for us over to any 3rd party because they will never have the same interest in making informed decisions as the beholder. There is nothing on the line for someone to make decisions on another's behalf.
The Sokovia Accords Debate [1] from the Captain America Civil War (2016) film says it best, imho.
The most accurate lines I can draw around either are abstract enough that they end up in the same bucket, but perhaps we're defining them differently