'People who want privacy have something to hide.'

[KrossBillNye]

Lets say for the sake of arguement that this is put into place.

Like aegix drakan pointed out earlier there would be no privacy at all.

That means if you want to send a message to your gf or your wife while at work and you decide to send something naughty, or you are at home, you send a picture that you want to share between you and your significant other, that picture is also being sent to the 'Police'.

You are trying to say that you would be comfortable with that? No privacy whatsoever?

Sure it might help with reducing terrorism, piracy, and the likes but it will not stop it. These methods can still be executed by other means.

In my opinion censorship of the internet and monitoring of it is not the answer. It is evasive, no matter the good or ill intentions that they claim.

aegix drakan pretty much nailed this whole rebuttal, but honestly. Imagine someone watching your every move. Your routine of going to the bathroom (writing down everything you do) who you meet, who you talk to, who you know, who you love, and who you spend time with doing (Whatever it is you do). The internet gives us all a chance to express a part of ourselves that we are too shy to show in public. I have secrets I like to keep, just as much as you have secrets I am sure you don't want others to know about.

Everyone has a skeleton in their closet.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Yeah. Porn. I'm hiding porn from people.

It may just be me, but I have a hard time getting off on the idea that someone knows exactly how I like to watch Sasha Grey take it.

Also, I don't want my parents knowing that I just typed in the above sentence on a computer.

And you fuckers over at the pentagon covered up a couple thousand computers worth of child pornography with no repercussions, so I get to watch my normal adult porn in peace.

 

[isometry]

I've been playing Civ 4, so naturally what comes to mind is:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[SenseOfTumour]

The closest statement I've heard recently was "only pedophiles need privacy".

The man who shat these words out into public, none other than Paul McMullen, ex News of the World scummy journo, and also claims that 'in 21 years of looking into people's private lives I never discovered anything good.' Another favourite of his was claiming that hacking a murdered girl's mobile phone, giving fresh hope to her parents, with the signs of activity, 'was a good thing'.

I also agree with the Benjamin Franklin thing.

We'll never eradicate terrorism completely, or piracy, or war or murder. We should of course put in place some things to combat all of these, but locking down everything and making life harder for everyone is a cost too high to trouble the tiny tiny percentage of people actually causing the trouble.

Some people would happily go back to a time when the internet didn't exist, because child porn is available on it, and pedophiles use it to contact children.

I'm not going to go as far as saying youtube is worth a certain number of abused children, but there's a reason Fort Knox has certain levels of security that say, Dunkin Donuts doesn't have. You have to balance security with both risk and freedom, and I believe it's mainly those ignorant of the facts, those who don't understand what is even happening or how things work, that are happiest to trade it all away for some fictional idea of safety.

It's like when Fox News tried to brand the Nintendo DS as a 'tool for pedos', because it has the ability to send messages over wifi. So a child, if he wanted to, could send his name, address, and when his parents are out to any pedo within about 20 metres.

A bit like ... a pencil!

BAN PENCILS!

Locking down the internet because crimes are committed there is like building a big wall around America and reclassifying it a prison because there's some crime there. You have a legal system, use it. Find evidence, get proof, and then take them to court.

 

[LongAndShort]

There's plenty I want to hide. Nothing illegal, but nothing I want other people to know about. That's the whole point of privacy, isn't it? Being able to hide the things we want to keep private?

Ah well, stupid is as stupid does.

 

[ckam]

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?

See here's the thing.

Just because you don't want everyone to see everything you do doesn't mean you're doing something illegal.

Example: Let's say that there's a guy running for public office, or just trying to get a promotion at work. Then this legislation goes through and it's discovered that he has a fetish for dressing up in Pokemon suits when having (consensual) sex. The guy would be ruined! He would be laughed out of office, or his boss might actually fire him because he doesn't want "Weirdos" working for him. And keep in mind that this poor guy isn't doing anything wrong, but will suffer greatly.

So yeah, practically everyone has something they don't want anyone knowing. Whether it's a fetish, or how often they masturbate, or if they have a bizarre hobby like making Iron Man suit replicas. If these secrets are exposed for all to see, they can be embarrassing at best, and harmful to their lives at worst.

As long as we're not doing anything illegal in our homes, no one has the right to step inside and spy on us.

Oh, and I highly doubt that this will apply to politicians, so no one can argue that this system would keep them "Clean". Just try suggesting that they make political party spending 100% transparent, and see how they take it. They'll fight that to the grave.

Honestly, spying on everyone is just going to benefit the people on top who want to control everything and make the world a big grey homogenous mass of boring, mindless, homogenized living dolls.

So screw this legislation, it's only going to make life miserable, and get abused to hell and back.

So, yeah. This explains just about everything. Oh, well.

Also, "Those who would give up a little liberty to acquire a bit of temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Thanks Ben.

 

[Durgiun]

OK, sure, but only if we get to see what our politicians are doing every minute of every day in return. What? You mean they wouldn't allow that because their lives are just as fucked up as ours? Huh, look at that.

 

[Woodsey]

And I'm sure anyone who says that is perfectly willing to walk around naked in public, because you only wear clothes if you've got hideous deformities to hide, right?

 

[2fish]

Everyone has something to hide. It may not be illegal but they just may not want the world to know about it. BS argument "to protect people by removing your rights". Get a warrant or let me install cameras in every politician?s and police officer?s house. I mean what do they have to hide they are the law.

And I'm sure anyone who says that is perfectly willing to walk around naked in public, because you only wear clothes if you've got hideous deformities to hide, right?

I would, but um I sunburn easy.

 

[spartan231490]

It's a retarded argument. We have rights for a reason, we need to fight to protect them.

 

[Tanis]

If this is the mentality then why was ACTA made behind closed doors?

HHUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????????

 

[ph0b0s123]

And you fuckers over at the pentagon covered up a couple thousand computers worth of child pornography with no repercussions, so I get to watch my normal adult porn in peace.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pentagon-declined-investigate-hundreds-purchases-child-pornography.html

Wow, just wow. They kept that quiet. Que 'mind blown' Jon Stewart clip. So people who when evidence is handed to them cannot be bothered to take it further, want monitoring of everyone so they can better get offenders. Unbelievable....

 

[TheOneBearded]

Yeah. Porn. I'm hiding porn from people.

It may just be me, but I have a hard time getting off on the idea that someone knows exactly how I like to watch Sasha Grey take it.

Also, I don't want my parents knowing that I just typed in the above sentence on a computer.

And you fuckers over at the pentagon covered up a couple thousand computers worth of child pornography with no repercussions, so I get to watch my normal adult porn in peace.

You have just made my day. Thanks a million!

 

[Nimcha]

I find it funny that the internet in recent years suddenly has become something that is supposed to be open to absolutely everyone, in other words public, but on the other hand completely anonymous.

It's just an oxymoron, really.

 

[Toby Kitching]

It's not neccesarily that you have something to hide. I just don't like the idea that i'm being watched. Example: I can't work, play games, read or do anything really if someone is looking at me. I have this really uncomfortable feeling when i get stared at, and I feel kinda the same when i know I'm being monitored. It's just an annoyance and a discomfort that a lot of people feel they could do without.

On the other hand, I do see why people want to slap extra security on the internet. If I have to feel uncomfortable to get pedophiles, terrorists, etc. locked up, then that seems fair enough to me

 

[evilneko]

Anyone who uses that argument can be safely dismissed as a fool.

 

[Azure90]

The only good agrument i'm seeing for privacy is sexually acts. Really you people would let some of the worst criminals get away in order to fap in peace. You people are selfish

 

[Versuvius]

That's like saying those people filming you in the shower aren't breaking the law. After all, you got undressed first. If you don't want watching, don't shower!

 

[hubert]

Edit

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Most of the time when I hide behind privacy it is when I am in violation of some rule or law, so the argument does largely apply to me. However, I know many people who are very much on the straight and narrow who are much more private people than I am. So, it depends on the individual. It is not an accurate argument as a general rule.