2 ms·
Maybe this was meant to be a joke, but an officer's superiors would be the one's looking over the stalls. No secrets no privacy. Privacy is a courtesy. And a r
by unabst 9y ago
Maybe this was meant to be a joke, but an officer's superiors would be the one's looking over the stalls. No secrets no privacy.
Privacy is a courtesy. And a right to courtesy. Secrecy should be all that is related to security. It's interesting because the military seems to know exactly what a secret is. It'd make more sense to have secrecy laws alongside privacy laws for citizens. Privacy laws are not secrecy laws. Hence the NSA get's to do what they did, and hence they trampled on everyone's privacy outright violating all courtesy. They then make it a security issue.
As it stands, citizens are entitled to no secrets. Hence it's the wild west and we're left encrypting ourselves and standing in direct conflict with the government that would do far better helping us than being rude and insecure. Insecure is what they are. They have no trust or confidence in the people.
- matt_wulfeck 9y agoIt was being facetious of course. But as to your second point, I really believe we are entitled to secrets, at least from my own reading of the 4th amendment to our constitution: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches This, to me a layman citizen of our country, means we are emphatically and explicitly granted the right to privacy against our government. Then again, we live in a time where a secret court can grant an order that tramples on our constitution. Apparently our government believes on it is allowed privacy. You ever hear about this secret court orders and ask yourself, "Are we both reading the same constitution??"