3 ms·

The best argument I ever heard was: "Would you give up your right to free speech just because you have nothing important to say? No? Then why would you give up

The best argument I ever heard was: "Would you give up your right to free speech just because you have nothing important to say? No? Then why would you give up your right to privacy just because you have nothing to hide?"

jason0597 6y ago
If I'm not mistaken, it was Edward Snowden who said this.
- kulahan 6y ago
  That's correct!
zmmmmm 6y ago
I like that. It raises the important point: of course you don't care about privacy now while you have nothing to hide. You should care about it because one day you might. It might be a stalker, a corrupt government official or policeman, someone at work who is competitive with you, you might be a whistleblower or learn a family secret that would damage your reputation (lets say, your father is a pedophile) .... all these things happen to completely "regular" people who until that point had "nothing to hide" and they end up needing or wishing to hide them in at least some circumstances.
old-gregg 6y ago
While I fully support strong privacy & encryption, there is absolutely no logic in this argument because it tries to build upon an unrelated hypothetical. A stronger argument should have tried to explain how this violates the constitution: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-constitution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-c...
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  The logic used here is argument by analogy. Talking about the constitution would be a different argument.
  - old-gregg 6y ago
    Analogy != "something different entirely". If we accept such weak criteria for acceptable arguments, one could argue for or against anything by picking a convenient "analogy". Pointing out that a weakened encryption is analogous to getting a wiretapping order for everyone without a cause is a stronger argument.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      I believe the criticism you are attempting to make is that those are like apples and oranges. However, I completely disagree.
- suizi 6y ago
  It creates a committee which is extremely likely to pass policies which violate the Constitution. In fact, if there were really effective ways to reduce crime online which didn't violate it, they likely would have been passed twenty years ago without trying to piggyback on another bill. I agree, the EFF should have elaborated more on concrete examples of how it violates the Constitution. The potential space for bad policy is gargantuan and hard to explore without additional hints or context. Given that enumerated in rhetoric, tech company policy, recent events and the bill itself: It may create potential for witch hunts. Think of some recent conspiracy theories here. To censor speech which comes close to looking "suspicious" whomever is the one to define this. This is most likely the government. It may push companies to use filters which over-censor speech and it may be impossible to get a remedy at the scale at which they operate. Trolls could abuse mechanisms to silence opinions they disagree with. If a government decides to smear someone's reputation through a coordinated campaign, they could make the argument they are a danger to society and pressure platforms to silence them.
- kulahan 6y ago
  You'll have to explain to me how it's an "unrelated hypothetical". Both situations: * Indicate that you have a right * Which you probably don't have a pressing need for at the moment * But the lack of a need in the immediate future doesn't mean you won't ever have a need for it The only real difference between the two, as far as I can tell, is the actual right you're not-using-but-still-protecting. What am I missing?
vpzom 6y ago
Though plenty of people don't believe in the right to free speech
serial_dev 6y ago
Instead of "nothing to hide", we should frame it as do you have "nothing to protect"? Without privacy, you, your family, or anyone you are in contact with becomes an easier target.

jason0597 6y ago

If I'm not mistaken, it was Edward Snowden who said this.

kulahan 6y ago
That's correct!

zmmmmm 6y ago

I like that. It raises the important point: of course you don't care about privacy now while you have nothing to hide. You should care about it because one day you might. It might be a stalker, a corrupt government official or policeman, someone at work who is competitive with you, you might be a whistleblower or learn a family secret that would damage your reputation (lets say, your father is a pedophile) .... all these things happen to completely "regular" people who until that point had "nothing to hide" and they end up needing or wishing to hide them in at least some circumstances.

old-gregg 6y ago

While I fully support strong privacy & encryption, there is absolutely no logic in this argument because it tries to build upon an unrelated hypothetical. A stronger argument should have tried to explain how this violates the constitution: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-constitution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-c...

lazyasciiart 6y ago
The logic used here is argument by analogy. Talking about the constitution would be a different argument.
- old-gregg 6y ago
  Analogy != "something different entirely". If we accept such weak criteria for acceptable arguments, one could argue for or against anything by picking a convenient "analogy". Pointing out that a weakened encryption is analogous to getting a wiretapping order for everyone without a cause is a stronger argument.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    I believe the criticism you are attempting to make is that those are like apples and oranges. However, I completely disagree.
suizi 6y ago
It creates a committee which is extremely likely to pass policies which violate the Constitution. In fact, if there were really effective ways to reduce crime online which didn't violate it, they likely would have been passed twenty years ago without trying to piggyback on another bill. I agree, the EFF should have elaborated more on concrete examples of how it violates the Constitution. The potential space for bad policy is gargantuan and hard to explore without additional hints or context. Given that enumerated in rhetoric, tech company policy, recent events and the bill itself: It may create potential for witch hunts. Think of some recent conspiracy theories here. To censor speech which comes close to looking "suspicious" whomever is the one to define this. This is most likely the government. It may push companies to use filters which over-censor speech and it may be impossible to get a remedy at the scale at which they operate. Trolls could abuse mechanisms to silence opinions they disagree with. If a government decides to smear someone's reputation through a coordinated campaign, they could make the argument they are a danger to society and pressure platforms to silence them.
kulahan 6y ago
You'll have to explain to me how it's an "unrelated hypothetical". Both situations: * Indicate that you have a right * Which you probably don't have a pressing need for at the moment * But the lack of a need in the immediate future doesn't mean you won't ever have a need for it The only real difference between the two, as far as I can tell, is the actual right you're not-using-but-still-protecting. What am I missing?

vpzom 6y ago

Though plenty of people don't believe in the right to free speech

serial_dev 6y ago

Instead of "nothing to hide", we should frame it as do you have "nothing to protect"? Without privacy, you, your family, or anyone you are in contact with becomes an easier target.