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

[rodneyy]

simply this, it does not matter if you are breaking the law or not its only matters if the people "think" you are breaking the law and that is enough for them to come down on you with all their powers.

look at jean charles de menezes the guy had done noting wrong was just going about his day as normall, one small slipup in the command structure and they belive he is a terrorist about to blow up a bomb so give the order and kill him.

or how about this, you walk every day along the same bit of street on the way to work or whatever. doing the same trip in reverse there is a guy over time you get to recognise him give a nod in passing maybe say hi, you bump into him in a corner shop and give the same responce.
turns out the guy is some mega terrorist going to blow up the earth with a paper clip and some bleach MacGyver style. so they start looking into you thinking its some coded trasfer the chance meeting on the street with nods and winks the corner shop was a dead drop of orders or something like that and from noting you are on their most wanted list.

 

[Muspelheim]

I for one don't care. My city is going through a surge of violence: some kids broke into a dentist clinic and tied the doctor down, one took her credit card and went to an ATM to draw her money, sadly for her she wasn't rich, she only had R$ 30,00 in her bank account (about 15 dollars); so the guys comes back, tells his buddies and then they threw alcohol on her and set the doctor on fire, she died before the ambulance arrived. Some of those guys were identified (all minors), but later on the week some completely different kids broke into another clinic and did the same, this time they didn't even want anything, they just wanted to follow the trend of "set a dentist on fire". The number of apartments here in São Paulo, Brazil being violated by criminals who will kill, rape and steal everything within is rising, you can't really go to restaurants, because they might quickly invade it and take every damn wallet and cell phone from the clientele as well. Oh, you must have heard about beautiful Rio as well, about the American girl who was having a nice stride in one of the richest "safest" places in Rio when they were both kidnapped: he was beaten and thrown out of the vehicle, she was raped by all men and then taken inside a favela (Max Payne 3 players will know) where she was given as a present to a crime lord, who denied the gift saying she had been "spoiled", she was later found by the police, yes that's the beautiful country that will open heartedly welcome you to the World Cup and Olympic Games! Be sure to bring your bullet proof vests, personal security and personal weapons!
In sight of what I narrated, and other events if extreme violence, I WANT my privacy to be violated, I want them to know everything that's happening in my life, so they can be sure I'm not a hazard, and if i become a victim, I want them to know who is the culprit; I want to be sure that my neighbor is not a criminal, and hell, follow my line of thought, if I lived in the USA I sure would wish to be sure my neighbor isn't a terrorist or a gang member or something.
But that's just me and that's not the Big Picture...

You do have a point, which I haven't considered enough, myself. I'm prepared to allow a certain increase in the emphasis on security at the cost of my integrity when things have come to that, when it's really a matter of martial law.

It's a question of where that line goes, and it's a fairly individual one. But sooner or later, you reach a point where something must be done. The crux, I suppose, is that a martial law needs to be temporary, for the duration of the problem needing an adequate solution. But now that I think of it, I am alright with co-operating if it means real, dangerous criminals are eliminated.

Some would say that freedom and safety are utterly mutually exclusive, but I beg to differ. It all depends on emphasis and balance. And some situations require a temporary re-evaluation of that balance.

 

[Weaver]

If we have nothing to hide thus nothing to fear... If the government wasn't doing anything wrong, why did they hide it from everyone?

 

[careful]

He really should of thought this through

You know he's a 29 year old systems administrator at one of the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world. I'm pretty sure he thought it through. Just because he reached a different conclusion that you did doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing.

This type of information can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

I think it already is in the wrong hands, but agree to disagree.

If you have nothing to hide, you won't be suspected.

Well if you don't care, at least understand how other people might.

Would you prefer we only bag-check non-americans only at the airport because they're not from our country and they're most likely to try to smuggle something illegal? Hell no. American's have the same probability as any other. So when it comes to national security, is it only Non-Americans that are terrorists? No. It's can potentially be anyone. Look at the last three events that have occurred. All Americans.

Good point. Look at the last three events that occurred. They occurred, didn't they? In other words, they weren't stopped. In other words mass surveillance doesn't stop people from making bombs or buying hand guns.

You need to start thinking bigger than just some dude hates his neighbour, or some guy looks at hardcore animal pornography or something. What repressive governments care about is dissent, not monitoring people's porn downloads. What the government gains from mass surveillance is the means by which it can crush dissent. And governments brutally crushing dissent is more common than you might think:

• 
  Saudi Arabia: Cleric who Backed Protests on Trial for His Life [http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/10/saudi-arabia-cleric-who-backed-protests-trial-his-life]
  

  Authorities shot al-Nimr, 52, in the leg four times in disputed circumstances as they arrested him on July 8, 2012. He went on trial before Riyadh's Specialized Criminal Court on March 26, 2013, accused of "sowing discord" and "undermining national unity."

  Iraq: Parliament Report Alleges Officials Ordered Raid [http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/04/iraq-parliament-report-alleges-officials-ordered-raid]
  

  A preliminary parliamentary committee report based in part on witness interviews and given to Human Rights Watch claims top Iraqi officials ordered a raid on a demonstrators' camp on April 23, 2013, in Haweeja.

  Iran: Stop Dissident's Execution [http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/08/iran-stop-dissident-s-execution]
  

  "Iran is one of the world's leading abusers of the death penalty and commonly applies the penalty to political dissidents like Savadjani," said Eric Goldstein, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Savadjani?s life hangs in the balance even though the authorities never asserted that he used violence against the state."

  Continuing Repression by the Vietnamese Government [http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/04/continuing-repression-vietnamese-government]
  

  Acts of dissent in Vietnam are met with repression, and over the last year, more and more Vietnamese dissidents have been convicted and sent to jail. Acts of dissent are violations of Vietnam's authoritarian penal code, which prohibits public criticism of the government and the Communist Party.

  Egypt's worrying rise in criminal blasphemy cases [http://amnesty.org/en/news/egypt-s-worrying-rise-criminal-blasphemy-cases-2013-06-11]
  

  A Luxor court on Tuesday fined Coptic Christian teacher Dimyana Obeid Abd Al Nour 100,000 Egyptian pounds (approx. US$14,000) for allegedly insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad during one of her classes. It also referred compensation claims to civil court.

  In harm's way ? Bahraini children jailed in adult prisons [http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/harm-s-way-bahraini-children-jailed-adult-prisons-2013-05-31]
  

  The two teenagers were arrested on 23 July 2012 during an anti-government protest in Bilad al-Qadeem, a suburb of the capital Manama. For nearly 48 hours after their arrest, they were not allowed to speak to their families and there was no lawyer present during their interrogation. Both boys told their families they had been beaten after their arrest ? Jehad Sadeq Aziz Salman claimed police beat him on the back and head with the back of a weapon.
  

  Turkey must halt brutal police repression and investigate abuses at Istanbul protest [http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/turkey-must-halt-brutal-police-repression-and-investigate-abuses-istanbul-protest-2013-05-31]
  

  The use of violence by police on this scale appears designed to deny the right to peaceful protest altogether and to discourage others from taking part.

Notice the dates on these articles. And it's not just in far away countries, it's beginning in the US too:

I'm not saying the US government is an authoritarian regime, but giving the government powers of mass surveillance and then pretending like nothing bad at all will come of it (look at what governments to with power in general) is like giving a stranger your car keys and then making him promise he won't still your car as you cover your eyes, close your eyes, and turn around. Anyways, without reading the above articles, you get the point. But what you should read is this: Checks, Balances, and the National Security Agency (American Civil Liberties Union). [http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/checks-balances-and-national-security-agency]

 

[Bato]

I fall in the category of nothing to hide nothing to fear people.
I don't care if they know what I may or may not jerk to. Say about other people. What sort of views I hold. I just don't care.

However I do think it is downright stupid to monitor people like this.
It feels like an invasion of my liberties to protect my liberties.

If you're doing this to stop terrorists, the very fact you're doing this means that they are terrorizing you. And you're giving into it. And making it worse.
If you're doing it to stop Piracy then you're just stupid. Because you'll never stop piracy and even if you manage to.. It wont change anything. If someone is going to pirate then chances are they're not going to buy the game/movie/music/car.

No kind of protection is worth going this far I think. Because it sounds like the sort of thing that would lead to 1984.

 

[Milanezi]

...

You do have a point, which I haven't considered enough, myself. I'm prepared to allow a certain increase in the emphasis on security at the cost of my integrity when things have come to that, when it's really a matter of martial law.

It's a question of where that line goes, and it's a fairly individual one. But sooner or later, you reach a point where something must be done. The crux, I suppose, is that a martial law needs to be temporary, for the duration of the problem needing an adequate solution. But now that I think of it, I am alright with co-operating if it means real, dangerous criminals are eliminated.

Some would say that freedom and safety are utterly mutually exclusive, but I beg to differ. It all depends on emphasis and balance. And some situations require a temporary re-evaluation of that balance.[/quote]

True freedom, as in, no boundaries at all, DOES exclude safety, but ONLY if you have the point of view that men left to their own designs will, sooner or later, turn to some sort of conflict, that the view of Hobbes in Leviathan, for instance, and I believe it as well, we are, after only animals with a rational capacity for conscience, he also says that sooner or later men will tire of at least minor conflicts, and because it`s better from themselves, arrive at some sort of consensus by choosing a sovereign.
HOWEVER, freedom as we have it today, is not an excludent of safety: in textbook terms "my freedom ends when it invades YOUR freedom, and law exists to COERCE people into not invading each other spaces", at this point I may point another maximum of law "I'm free to do what I will, as long as it`s not a crime or prohibited by law in any other way".
In other words, freedom as a savage estate may destroy safety, but that depends on human behavior and what is called "natural law" (law that comes from such high power that it cannot be contested, it is a power above mankind, it may be a God or the very cultural/historical conscience of a given people). Freedom as we are discussing here, no, it does not exclude safety, unless it turns to a truly centralized dictatorship, such as Hitler and Stalin.

 

[Vivi22]

Perhaps I'm missing something but the comic doesn't really make sense. I don't get what spying on people has to do with defeating the purpose of the separation of powers. How does unrestricted axess to data give the executive branch Legislative and executive powers? Last time I checked you still need all three branches to make and enforce laws.

Legislative and Judicial. They have the power to make the law, as well as evidence against all kinds of people who broke the law they're making, and the power to disseminate that information, or directly bring them up on charges. This is bad. The people who make the laws should not also collect evidence to make a case against you. And them having a database filled with information about what you've done and who you've spoken to is even worse should they choose to consult it before making new laws if they happen to not like you.

 

[BlindTom]

The simplest answer I have found would be:

"Please tell me your social security number, full bank account details, and where your children play. You can trust me with this information."


I would compare the 'nothing to fear, nothing to hide' mindset to the 'sluts deserve to be sexually assaulted' mindset. It places moral responsibility for an abuse upon the victim. The difference is that nobody actually believes that sluts deserve to be sexually assaulted, that is just an absurd strawman whilst 'nothing to fear, nothing to hide' is, to my horror, deadly serious.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Trust is a two way street and information is power.
A government that spies on its own people obviously does not trust them.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Abomination]

Trust is a two way street and information is power.
A government that spies on its own people obviously does not trust them.

Make of that what you will.

No government trusts it people... that's why we have a government in the first place, and a police force, and a judicial system...