6 ms·

You may have nothing to hide in the current political climate or under the current political leaders, but what is allowed now might become anathema later, and t

You may have nothing to hide in the current political climate or under the current political leaders, but what is allowed now might become anathema later, and those records can be searched and retroactively prosecuted. We already see hints of this when someone gets canceled for something they tweeted 10 years ago. Imagine that, but on a broader scale with more violent consequences. That's why privacy is important for everyone.

Defletter 4y ago
True but your arguments here largely regard deliberate speech, whereas the post is more about personal data. What OS is running on your phone doesn't really make a difference in whether you get cancelled over something your posted on social media 10 years ago.
- prometheus76 4y ago
  But were you in a certain building at the time the opposition party was having a meeting? Did you have dinner with this certain person who was part of an underground resistance (of which you had no idea at the time)? Your phone was turned off for 10 hours, during which this murder happened and someone saw you in the area. I could go on like this. I think you underestimate the story someone can build from your data (even if the story they invent is completely untrue) and I think you underestimate the frenzied desperation that can overtake people in power who are desperate to stay in power. Reading historic accounts of life in totalitarian regimes is worth the effort.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    to add to that, were you in the area of the capitol riots while it was happening? Hope you can prove your innocence! The point to be made is that you don't know because you can't predict.
- emiliobumachar 4y ago
  Give the iOS fans vs. Android fans rivalry 15 more years.
robswc 4y ago
This is actually my argument for the 2nd amendment too. I don’t believe we need guns atm… but we are unsure of what the future holds and surrendering such a monumental right would be next to impossible to “undo” if the time ever comes.
- rocket_surgeron 4y ago
  >I don’t believe we need guns atm… but we are unsure of what the future holds and surrendering such a monumental right would be next to impossible to “undo” if the time ever comes. No freedom has ever been won or guarded with the types of firearms legal under the 2nd amendment. Ever. Anywhere. Literally every single example you're going to reply with is wrong. Not even the American Revolution was "won" using personally-owned weapons. It was won using artillery, naval vessels, mercenaries from overseas, and the first thing that happened when a patriot showed up for his patriotic duty with his pappy's musket was throw it in the trash and issue a soldier a Brown Bess or Committee of Safety musket so that the caliber, rate of fire, effective range, and operating procedures were the same amongst all soldiers. Not in Vietnam, not in Afghanistan, not anywhere at any time has a conflict against a government either foreign or domestic been defeated using personally-owned weapons. The few times in America where it was tried, post Revolutionary War, the tax/whiskey/voting rights rebellioneers were crushed under the might of a pathetically small standing army that used cavalry and artillery to intimidate them. The various slave rebellions and civil rights conflicts changed nothing. Lawyers, peaceful protest, not-so-peaceful-protest, and public opinion changed things. In terms of ethnic violence, everywhere, every time, in each and every case where a smaller population has armed itself to protect itself the only result has been the employment of mechanized terror against them with horrific results. "Oh but the Warsaw Ghetto.." nope. The germans went in, received fire from personal weapons, left and leveled the ghetto with tanks and mortars. "Oh but if the Tutsis had had rif.." nope. Both sides had rifles. When the Tutsis started scrouging AKs, the Hutus responded with grenades, automatic weapons, and bulldozers. The government didn't even do most of the killing, instead ordering the Hutu majority population to do it for them, at the point of a belt-fed machine gun. During the Kibeho massacre guns were too slow so they just mortared the sea of refugees with 60mm mortars. If every single Tutsi had possessed an automatic rifle with infinite ammunition, they would have all still been murdered. A rifle is useless against 60mm mortars and air-mobile military forces. The only protection against tyranny is strong civic organizations and the rule of law. When those break down whoever has the most cash to buy the most heavy weapons, usually the government, wins. The only thing the wide availability of weapons has done in areas WITHOUT strong civic organizations and the rule of law has been to turn vast swathes of Pakistan and Afghanistan into lawless zones of chaos and misery, ruled by whichever warlord can get the most RPGs or convince their followers to become suicide bombers. Ten million personal AR-15s are useless against ten thousand mechanized infantrymen. Firearms protecting rights is a myth.

Defletter 4y ago

True but your arguments here largely regard deliberate speech, whereas the post is more about personal data. What OS is running on your phone doesn't really make a difference in whether you get cancelled over something your posted on social media 10 years ago.

prometheus76 4y ago
But were you in a certain building at the time the opposition party was having a meeting? Did you have dinner with this certain person who was part of an underground resistance (of which you had no idea at the time)? Your phone was turned off for 10 hours, during which this murder happened and someone saw you in the area. I could go on like this. I think you underestimate the story someone can build from your data (even if the story they invent is completely untrue) and I think you underestimate the frenzied desperation that can overtake people in power who are desperate to stay in power. Reading historic accounts of life in totalitarian regimes is worth the effort.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  to add to that, were you in the area of the capitol riots while it was happening? Hope you can prove your innocence! The point to be made is that you don't know because you can't predict.
emiliobumachar 4y ago
Give the iOS fans vs. Android fans rivalry 15 more years.

robswc 4y ago

This is actually my argument for the 2nd amendment too. I don’t believe we need guns atm… but we are unsure of what the future holds and surrendering such a monumental right would be next to impossible to “undo” if the time ever comes.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago
>I don’t believe we need guns atm… but we are unsure of what the future holds and surrendering such a monumental right would be next to impossible to “undo” if the time ever comes. No freedom has ever been won or guarded with the types of firearms legal under the 2nd amendment. Ever. Anywhere. Literally every single example you're going to reply with is wrong. Not even the American Revolution was "won" using personally-owned weapons. It was won using artillery, naval vessels, mercenaries from overseas, and the first thing that happened when a patriot showed up for his patriotic duty with his pappy's musket was throw it in the trash and issue a soldier a Brown Bess or Committee of Safety musket so that the caliber, rate of fire, effective range, and operating procedures were the same amongst all soldiers. Not in Vietnam, not in Afghanistan, not anywhere at any time has a conflict against a government either foreign or domestic been defeated using personally-owned weapons. The few times in America where it was tried, post Revolutionary War, the tax/whiskey/voting rights rebellioneers were crushed under the might of a pathetically small standing army that used cavalry and artillery to intimidate them. The various slave rebellions and civil rights conflicts changed nothing. Lawyers, peaceful protest, not-so-peaceful-protest, and public opinion changed things. In terms of ethnic violence, everywhere, every time, in each and every case where a smaller population has armed itself to protect itself the only result has been the employment of mechanized terror against them with horrific results. "Oh but the Warsaw Ghetto.." nope. The germans went in, received fire from personal weapons, left and leveled the ghetto with tanks and mortars. "Oh but if the Tutsis had had rif.." nope. Both sides had rifles. When the Tutsis started scrouging AKs, the Hutus responded with grenades, automatic weapons, and bulldozers. The government didn't even do most of the killing, instead ordering the Hutu majority population to do it for them, at the point of a belt-fed machine gun. During the Kibeho massacre guns were too slow so they just mortared the sea of refugees with 60mm mortars. If every single Tutsi had possessed an automatic rifle with infinite ammunition, they would have all still been murdered. A rifle is useless against 60mm mortars and air-mobile military forces. The only protection against tyranny is strong civic organizations and the rule of law. When those break down whoever has the most cash to buy the most heavy weapons, usually the government, wins. The only thing the wide availability of weapons has done in areas WITHOUT strong civic organizations and the rule of law has been to turn vast swathes of Pakistan and Afghanistan into lawless zones of chaos and misery, ruled by whichever warlord can get the most RPGs or convince their followers to become suicide bombers. Ten million personal AR-15s are useless against ten thousand mechanized infantrymen. Firearms protecting rights is a myth.