ph0b0s123 said:
In both Europe and the US at the moment there are efforts to get ISP's to record absolutely everything everyone does on-line (Reported here [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/28/details_of_all_internet_traffic_should_be_logged_says_mep/],here [http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/27/hawaiis-proposed-online-tracking-law-comes-under-fire-from-isps/] and here [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/]). From websites visited, to emails sent and comments left for example here and other places. There is also the technology available now to track almost everyone when not on-line via CCTV cameras and GPS in cars.
Now the reason used for all this being needed by legislators, is to protect people. Either from child abusers on-line, to terrorists outside your homes.
Now whenever any reservations are brought about this, the usual response seems to be only people who have something to hide should be worried about all this extra 'monitoring'.
What do people here think? Should we be monitored on mass without any thought to probable cause as with targeted monitoring (i.e wiretaps, etc). And is the argument that only people who have something to hide want privacy, a good one?
Edit: Forgot to also ask, do people think the Internet laws above are good if they are going to reduce, to some amount, child abuse etc. Or is it peoples view that the invasion of privacy outweighs the theoretical benefits? Or are child abusers and terrorists just bogey men that legislators use to try to get through things people would not allow otherwise.
The only people who would agree to 100% transparency (heck, even a fraction of a percent) are people who fall under the just world hypothesis. That is, people who believe that bad people always pay and good people never do bad. Also known as fairy land, or hollywood (joke). The only other folks who would welcome this, are corrupt individuals in a position to use such information.
No one, individual or group, is trustworthy enough in my opinion to be able to sieve through confidential information or to be allowed observe my regular routines. Why? Youtube, twitter, wikipedia, reddit, 4chan, hackers, identity thefts, scammers, deviants... all these people/places thrive with information, as much as any security force. One upping these individuals with such measures will only offer more power to them.
"How is that?" I hear you ask. Do you think the police are completely clear of Paedophile rings and Pirates, or totally not involved in Human trafficking or drug trades? Do you think social services are devoid of scammers and thieves or people who would screw you without even knowing you? Do you think the government is honest and forthcoming with what they do with such volatile information? Do you trust you neighbours enough to tell them about your weird hobbies or habitual routines?
The answer to any of these questions to a sane person would be no. A little bit of paranoia is a healthy thing, as too much trust can get you in serious shit (looking at you rapist taxi drivers/fake police men and child abusing teachers/priests).
Seriously, if I had the wits, fortitude and knowledge to survive totally independent of "society" I fucking would at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, I've fallen too far into conformity and comfort that such an options seems fruitless and depressing.
People are generally, okay, but everyone has potential to be a monster. Just one bad day.
EDIT: To phrase my point a bit better, Information is neither good nor bad, but the individuals who handle it or who are subject to it, are completely at the mercy of morality and lack thereof.
