5 ms·
How does this differ from "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about."? Surely it's not difficult for you to imagine fairly common scenarios
by lazyvoice 7y ago
How does this differ from "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about."?
Surely it's not difficult for you to imagine fairly common scenarios where your equation is patently untrue. A battered spouse of LEO or a non gender-conforming individual in a theocratic society are only two really easy examples that come to mind.
If we assume that individuals who control or have access to surveillance mechanisms are universally magnanimous and actually capable of neutralizing threats to safety, then your negative relationship between safety and privacy might hold up to scrutiny. I have more than a bit of trouble seeing how that assumption is anything other than utopian.
- grenoire 7y agoI don't mean to defend surveillance as a gateway to safety by any means, in fact I believe in the exact opposite. Unfortunately, it's going to be integrated into our society whether we like it or not, and after that point it's only a matter of time before we come to accept losing our privacy; having ignored all the exceptional "casualties" and enjoying the add scrutiny it yields to law enforcement.
- lazyvoice 7y agoI suspect the integration and matter of time exist in recent history. The question I struggle with is, what ought a neutral-good aligned individual do about it?
- grenoire 7y agoI think neutral good as an alignment inherently comes with a disadvantage in making impact. You have to take certain levels of risks at certain extremes to be able to influence anything.
- lazyvoice 7y agoI'd like to be neutral good, but recognize that one may need to dip into chaos depending on the landscape they find themselves in. :-)
- mjparrott 7y ago"Nothing to hide" is the worst argument possible on the subject