4 ms·

I think you may not be reading the parent comment correctly. They're saying that those on the list have a right to privacy, therefore outright leaking the list

I think you may not be reading the parent comment correctly. They're saying that those on the list have a right to privacy, therefore outright leaking the list is wrong. Being able to find out whether or not you are on the list is not incompatible with maintaining others' right to privacy.

calvinmorrison 4y ago
I am reading it correctly. They do not have a right to privacy, because we all have the right to know who the government is keeping on lists. Regardless the line of thinking reeks with hypocrisy - the government of the United States has been doing nothing but trampling privacy, yet when it comes to top secret government surveillance state programmes they hold it close to their chests
- jeffchien 4y ago
  I don't understand your reasoning. To me, you seem to be saying that since the state violated everyone's privacy, the general public now has the right to violate these individuals' privacy even further to get back at the state. Publishing the list as-is would also imply that you believe the state is infallible and can't err when putting people on this list. There are thousands of people out there who have redress numbers because they have the same name as someone on the list. Can you imagine if getting a redress number is necessary for employment? Leaking the list would ironically increase the state's control. (edit: Again, I'm not disagreeing with letting individuals find out if they themselves are on the list, just disagreeing with the method)
- berkle4455 4y ago
  > They do not have a right to privacy What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you understand the repercussions of it being found someone is on a no-fly list (because we all know the US government makes mistakes).
landemva 4y ago
> those on the list have a right to privacy, therefore outright leaking Those Americans on list have a right to question their accuser in court before a right (to travel) is restricted. When did we agree to suspend due process, 14th amendment?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

calvinmorrison 4y ago

I am reading it correctly. They do not have a right to privacy, because we all have the right to know who the government is keeping on lists. Regardless the line of thinking reeks with hypocrisy - the government of the United States has been doing nothing but trampling privacy, yet when it comes to top secret government surveillance state programmes they hold it close to their chests

jeffchien 4y ago
I don't understand your reasoning. To me, you seem to be saying that since the state violated everyone's privacy, the general public now has the right to violate these individuals' privacy even further to get back at the state. Publishing the list as-is would also imply that you believe the state is infallible and can't err when putting people on this list. There are thousands of people out there who have redress numbers because they have the same name as someone on the list. Can you imagine if getting a redress number is necessary for employment? Leaking the list would ironically increase the state's control. (edit: Again, I'm not disagreeing with letting individuals find out if they themselves are on the list, just disagreeing with the method)
berkle4455 4y ago
> They do not have a right to privacy What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you understand the repercussions of it being found someone is on a no-fly list (because we all know the US government makes mistakes).

landemva 4y ago

> those on the list have a right to privacy, therefore outright leaking Those Americans on list have a right to question their accuser in court before a right (to travel) is restricted. When did we agree to suspend due process, 14th amendment?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]