Privacy - Short counters to nothing to hide, nothing fear arguments.

[DEAD34345]

The "Nothing to fear" argument only works if you have absolute 100% faith in the government to both never abuse this information and to never let it leak to someone else. Good thing they've never done either of those things before, huh?

 

[CabbageSnake]

Spreading awareness does do something, it makes people aware of it. And people complain. If it gets to the point where the bubble bursts, they'll have revolts. I think Americans has gotten too complacent. Now with rights slowly sapped away, they are just taking it. At one point though, it will just be too much, and the faster people know about it, the better.

Here's an argument, I had more but it failed to post before and it was pretty long, so I'll skip over the the government not showing what they do, when they are supposed to be the morally superior people dissatisfies me. But I'll repeat this, the verizon data collection news from last week. A shortened video had a committee member ask something like this (paraphrased) How can we ensure that nothing from capitol hill was in this data collection? It seems like these "fine, law abidding citizens" worry about their privacy but not ours. That should get you thinking.

What if I have a third boob on my buttocks that I'm embarrassed about? Does that break the law? No. Does that mean, I don't want to hide it? Of course, I want to hide it.

 

[Queen Michael]

Imagine a guy. We'll call him Bob. From now on, you have to let Bob watch everything you do. When you eat, work, go to the bathroom, masturbate... He will be watching all the time. When you tell somebody something incredibly personal and confidential, he'll be with you. You and your girlfriend are going on a vacation to Hawaii? Cool! But you'll have to let Bob come with you. And when you and her make love, he will be watching silently all the time.

What? You don't like that idea? I guess you're a criminal.

 

[Zetona]

Has anyone yet pointed out the irony in saying that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from government monitoring, while the surveillance program in question was kept secret?

A counterargument to monitoring: The government has things it wants to keep secret. This is why it pours millions into encryption, black highlighters, and other security measures, and why things like classified documents exist. The majority of these things are acceptable within international law, and probably won't incite outrage if released, but they cover things that, if released, would compromise agents in the field and put lives at risk. We shouldn't ask the government to reveal everything unless we want a lot of blood on our hands. The government should not ask us to disclose everything.

Of course, the above argument is a bit fallacious for several reasons. The point of the program is to catch terrorists. I think most people would agree that if someone is a known terrorist, we should do whatever we can to monitor them to stop any plots they may have and perhaps capture them. The government keeps things secret which it perhaps shouldn't?this is why whistleblowers exist. In both cases, we must ask whether the cost of acquiring this information is worthwhile?is it worth risking sensitive information of millions of innocent people being made more available, or that the lives of scores of servicemen and -women are put in danger? The Obama administration would say it's worthwhile; Obama's personal conviction seems to be that it is worth any price to prevent the death of even one American due to terrorism. The public may not agree, but then again the public does not have the power, and the responsibility, to save or end thousands of lives.

On a different note, perhaps we should have seen this coming. The data-mining of Verizon calls is not unprecedented?[link = http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm] The NSA was collecting similar records on phone calls from AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth earlier in the decade [/link]. There have been outcries in the past over similar monitoring programs (warrantless wiretaps, anyone?). Private companies have been collecting personal data that is perhaps even more sensitive for years, in the name of better and more focused marketing.

 

[oktalist]

What, nobody reads Orwell any more? Or knows anything about the history of the 20th century at all?

 

[Muspelheim]

What is and what isn't a reason to have something to fear is subject to change, first of all. Furthermore, some things are hidden less out of fear, and more out of embarassment and simply consideration.

Let's say the political climate change, or if it becomes even more corp-friendly. Imagine your membership, current or old, in a union of sorts would make things more difficult in your life, such as employment or getting government services. It wasn't anything to hide, and it caused no reason to fear, but then it suddenly is, and suddenly does.

And let's be honest, some information, you just don't want. Nor is it even necessary to gather, and it's not hidden from anyone out of fear, but because it's no one else's business. For instance, no one has any need to know your neighbour's wank habits, and he has no reason to hide that out of fear. Only out of privacy, and because no one would want that information anyway.

Well, maybe some morals-obsessed groups would, but those are often the same people that does think that wanting privacy is an indication that you have something to hide. They tend to have quite a few things to hide, themselves.

how long will it be before such as system is abused? a day max. and from that point on its all down hill.

i am a communist, in the UK there is an old, and abet unenforced law which makes my political stance a crime. however when i discuss thing with friends about the state of the country and how i personally feel, these words could be used to construct a treason case against me in the UK. and treason still does carry the death penalty in the UK (as does murder of a member of the royal usurpers and arson in the *****'s dockyards).

now the way i phrased my last sentence will ALSO get me into trouble. see how easy it is to fall foul of a bullshit law with overbearing and all pervasive all seeing systems.

i wish my utter failure for a democracy had something akin to the US bill of rights, and constitution which specifically limits the way a government can act.

Well, thankfully, none of those capital punishment laws apply anymore. Even if a law would technically carry the death penalty, it'd still be an unlawful action for the state if they had you executed. I believe it's a human rights declaration of some description that overwrites the death penalty in all situations.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The short argument is that there are plenty of completely legal things that you can do that you wouldn't want people to know about. It would be true that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, but everyone has something to hide, even if that thing isn't illegal in any way.

I watch porn. I watch TONS of porn. All of the porn that I watch is completely legal, but that doesn't mean that I want people to know what kind of porn I watch.

Or hell, take a look at my search history. You know what my search history contains? Tons of searches about child abuse, rape, serial killers, photos of crime scenes, and different methods of disposing of bodies. Seems mighty suspicious doesn't it? Well, I'm a university student majoring in criminal justice and minoring in forensics, and it's all research for various papers. I'd be pretty pissed if my search history got into the hands of the FBI and I got put on some kind of watch list because of my search history.

Perfectly legal things can be misconstrued, and even worse, people can be ostracized even for doing completely legal things. No one should be ok with everything they do being monitored because you never know how doing something PERFECTLY LEGAL can get you in trouble.

 

[Abomination]

I'll only accuse a government of abuse of power when it actually abuses that power.

Your government has unmanned drones circling your airspace, capable of turning whatever particular plot of land you inhabit into a crater... but you're more worried that they might listen to a phone conversation?

The government has more than enough powers to abuse that this particular one should be on the bottom of the list. It would only be a tool in the toolbelt of oppression and I can assure you that belt is already crammed full of devices it could turn against you.

So I don't give a damn about this breach of privacy. They do not have the manpower to monitor EVERYONE. They most certainly won't be monitoring YOU. Yes, YOU. They've got better things to do, you're not nearly half as important to the government as you suspect yourself of being on even your worst day.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'll only accuse a government of abuse of power when it actually abuses that power.

Your government has unmanned drones circling your airspace, capable of turning whatever particular plot of land you inhabit into a crater... but you're more worried that they might listen to a phone conversation?

The government has more than enough powers to abuse that this particular one should be on the bottom of the list. It would only be a tool in the toolbelt of oppression and I can assure you that belt is already crammed full of devices it could turn against you.

So I don't give a damn about this breach of privacy. They do not have the manpower to monitor EVERYONE. They most certainly won't be monitoring YOU. Yes, YOU. They've got better things to do, you're not nearly half as important to the government as you suspect yourself of being on even your worst day.

So according to you normal people aren't important enough to monitor, but are important enough to blow up with a drone?

Sure.

 

[Abomination]

I'll only accuse a government of abuse of power when it actually abuses that power.

Your government has unmanned drones circling your airspace, capable of turning whatever particular plot of land you inhabit into a crater... but you're more worried that they might listen to a phone conversation?

The government has more than enough powers to abuse that this particular one should be on the bottom of the list. It would only be a tool in the toolbelt of oppression and I can assure you that belt is already crammed full of devices it could turn against you.

So I don't give a damn about this breach of privacy. They do not have the manpower to monitor EVERYONE. They most certainly won't be monitoring YOU. Yes, YOU. They've got better things to do, you're not nearly half as important to the government as you suspect yourself of being on even your worst day.

So according to you normal people aren't important enough to monitor, but are important enough to blow up with a drone?

Sure.

Are normal people being blown up by drones by their own government?

No.

Because the government has far more important things to do. Because those people are not important enough to warrent such attention.

Obey the law and be productive and the government will not pay you a lick of attention.

 

[Abomination]

This should terrify anyone with more than a half dozen working brain cells, whether they have "something to hide" or not.

Again, it's simply a tool that could be used in oppression. On top of every other government power that could be used in oppression, which is essentially EVERY government power.

There is potential for corruption in every government branch. There is already corruption in every government branch of the United States. The damn nation only seems to operate when corruption is used to grease the gears of the bureaucratic machine.

This situation is a slippery slope fallacy of the worst kind. The government employs an army, people who are drilled to obey orders, people who are paid to follow those orders, people who are mentally chipped away at to obey orders. The economy of America RELIES on the armed forces to support itself. And you care about some phone tapping?

Get your priorities straight. Who cares if they can hear you? You should care more about the fact they've got the PRACTICAL means of oppressing you.

 

[Foolery]

I don't see how this wouldn't end up being abused. No doubt about it. I'll start being okay with Big Brother tactics when governments start divulging their secrets. Which is never. Beyond that, any real criminals they would want to catch aren't on public sites. Really. Hacker types and other assorted folks hang out in encrypted IRC channels.

 

[an annoyed writer]

That statement goes both ways. If the government has nothing to hide, it should have nothing to fear, so If they want to watch me I want to know every little thing that goes on in my government's offices. If they want to know everything about every cell of my body, I better be in a position where not a single pin drops without me knowing about it. Eye for an eye, I suppose. It's only fair.

 

[Abomination]

This should terrify anyone with more than a half dozen working brain cells, whether they have "something to hide" or not.

Again, it's simply a tool that could be used in oppression. On top of every other government power that could be used in oppression, which is essentially EVERY government power.

There is potential for corruption in every government branch. There is already corruption in every government branch of the United States. The damn nation only seems to operate when corruption is used to grease the gears of the bureaucratic machine.

This situation is a slippery slope fallacy of the worst kind. The government employs an army, people who are drilled to obey orders, people who are paid to follow those orders, people who are mentally chipped away at to obey orders. The economy of America RELIES on the armed forces to support itself. And you care about some phone tapping?

Get your priorities straight. Who cares if they can hear you? You should care more about the fact they've got the PRACTICAL means of oppressing you.

Did you just ignore my entire post? I don't give a rat's ass if the government is monitoring me personally. That's not why I'm against it.

And my priorities ARE straight. I'm not too chicken-shit to live in a free society that respects the privacy and rights of the people that live there. I realize that means I need to accept a certain degree of risk. I'm OK with that.

It's YOU that needs to get YOUR priorities straight. Do you want to be FREE? Or do you want to be SAFE? If you choose safety over freedom then it's YOU that has fucked up priorities.

I don't know, I enjoy having both, thanks.

Because you see, this "freedom" you're losing? You're still able to have the same conversations with the same people about the same topics at the same times at the speed using the same services - nothing is going to affect you directly. No really, nothing is going to happen. I guess unless your conversations enjoy being about some sort of hypothetical plot to assassinate a state official or harm citizens of your own nation.

Someone could break the law and start abusing this information, people could break the law and start doing a lot of things that hurt the people of any nation. The tools have always been there and this is just going to be another tool that could be used for the benefit or the detriment of the nation's citizens. Sure, someone, somewhere is going to work out a way of using this to their own advantage - just like someone worked out how to use a car to run someone else over or an electric drill to make a hole in an enemy's head...

When it is applied in a manner that harms people is the time to be upset with something.

 

[DoPo]

No. You can't have both. Freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. Man, did you sleep through your American History classes?

I personally didn't sleep through the classes but only because I didn't have them. At any rate, security and privacy are not zero sum. As I already stated. Freedom, however, is a different concept than privacy, I'd suggest not equating the two.