4 ms·

The most immediate and palpable threat is the erosion of privacy. The notion that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a dangerously simpl

The most immediate and palpable threat is the erosion of privacy. The notion that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a dangerously simplistic view that ignores the fundamental importance of privacy as a human right. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about maintaining individual autonomy, freedom of thought, and the right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. But the risks extend far beyond privacy. History has shown us, time and again, that tools created for one purpose can and often are repurposed for more sinister ends. A government, benign today, could transform into a malicious entity tomorrow, wielding these surveillance capabilities to suppress dissent, manipulate public opinion, and maintain power through fear and control. The technological infrastructure for a surveillance state, once established, becomes a formidable tool in the hands of an oppressive regime.

stormfather 3y ago
I think one can even say that an authoritarian government is a more stable "state" than a benign one, and that due to entropy, all sufficiently perturbed governments decay to authoritarianism unless sustained by some external inputs. The input, in this case, being the activism of those who don't want to be surveilled.
- Clubber 3y ago
  You are right; authoritarianism is the default of states throughout history.
- pjc50 3y ago
  > activism of those who don't want to be surveilled. The tricky bit, as with most UK law'n'order politics, and the rightwing playbook in general, is dealing with how people want other people surveilled. Fear of crime and immigration narratives drive a demand for "something to be done" and "more powers". The ECHR is pretty weak against surveillance (https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillance_eng https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillan...), but it has been used in some cases to reduce it. But see how unpopular ECHR is in the UK - because it applies to humans, not just citizens, and there's a lot of people who want the state to be lawless against non-citizens.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Throw839 3y ago
This already happened in UK.
dghughes 3y ago
"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a good phrase to throw right back at politicians who have closed door meetings about surveillance, or anything.
- pjc50 3y ago
  "I've nothing to hide, I lost all my whatsapp messages when I changed phone" seems to be the common response.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  It doesn't work like that, because the justification they respond with is that if they make things public then criminals will know how to better hide their illicit activities. Or something along the lines of "we're having closed door meetings for the safety and security of the people"...
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  It is such a hollow argument. Anybody using "nothing to hide" arguments, go ahead and post your passwords. Philosophy Tube episode on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Shacklz 3y ago
> right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. If it was just the state, then I might even be able to live with it, as my trust in my government is rather high, even if I do agree with your second paragraph on principle. The problem though is that lax/non-existent privacy laws also allow Joe in marketing and his friends to do all kinds of creepy privacy-invading things, which I worry about much more. It fosters a mentality and culture around how to get the easiest to those who are most susceptible to whatever it is your peddling, and in today's day and age of social media I think it's fair to say that it's increasingly clear that that kind of culture isn't exactly a net favor for humanity as a whole. It's probably naive from me but I'm honestly much more worried about big tech and their nonchalant approach to privacy than I am about dangers of my government going full surveillance state. The two issues are of course not entirely separate either, they're very much intertwined.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Don't forget the press. I had occasion to look up Chris Huhne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne) as the energy secretary who kicked off the UK new nuclear programme, and right at the top of his wikipedia is .. the phone hacking scandal. Private surveillance by the press, which has been used for a wide variety of malicious gossip purposes rather than any kind of "speaking truth to power".
- theonlybutlet 3y ago
  A good example is Venezuela, this was a car crash in slow motion. I remember the incremental changes made to law being reported right throughout Hugo Chávez' term in office right from the beginning. He was wildly popular everyone trusted him, many warned of its implications each time a law was proposed and reported. And here we are today, Venezuela is a dictatorship. As the saying goes, it happens slowly and then all at once.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  >as my trust in my government is rather high Then you're very fortunate to live in one of the minority of places in the world where government is even moderately trustworthy. Many, possibly most people, dont and the tools of the surveillance state are increasingly being applied by their governments to further repress possible sources of change from that governing mean.
southernplaces7 3y ago
>ignores the fundamental importance of privacy as a human right. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about maintaining individual autonomy, freedom of thought, and the right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. It's impressive how many people make this argument and then turn right around to fully support the full plethora of modern KYC and AML laws with all their dubious justifications and even more dubious applications with absolutely no sense of the double standard. One supposes that a rght to privacy, individual autonomy and a life unscrutinized by an orreaching state also should include these things applied firmly to ones financial life, at least enough that any larish transaction isn't treated as if it's potentially criminal right off the bat.
belter 3y ago
> History has shown us, time and again, that tools created for one purpose can and often are repurposed for more sinister ends. Back in 2008... "UK terror law used for Iceland deposits" - https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b1f8 https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b...

stormfather 3y ago

I think one can even say that an authoritarian government is a more stable "state" than a benign one, and that due to entropy, all sufficiently perturbed governments decay to authoritarianism unless sustained by some external inputs. The input, in this case, being the activism of those who don't want to be surveilled.

Clubber 3y ago
You are right; authoritarianism is the default of states throughout history.
pjc50 3y ago
> activism of those who don't want to be surveilled. The tricky bit, as with most UK law'n'order politics, and the rightwing playbook in general, is dealing with how people want other people surveilled. Fear of crime and immigration narratives drive a demand for "something to be done" and "more powers". The ECHR is pretty weak against surveillance (https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillance_eng https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_mass_surveillan...), but it has been used in some cases to reduce it. But see how unpopular ECHR is in the UK - because it applies to humans, not just citizens, and there's a lot of people who want the state to be lawless against non-citizens.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Throw839 3y ago

This already happened in UK.

dghughes 3y ago

"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a good phrase to throw right back at politicians who have closed door meetings about surveillance, or anything.

pjc50 3y ago
"I've nothing to hide, I lost all my whatsapp messages when I changed phone" seems to be the common response.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
It doesn't work like that, because the justification they respond with is that if they make things public then criminals will know how to better hide their illicit activities. Or something along the lines of "we're having closed door meetings for the safety and security of the people"...
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
It is such a hollow argument. Anybody using "nothing to hide" arguments, go ahead and post your passwords. Philosophy Tube episode on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCUTX1jurJ4
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Shacklz 3y ago

> right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. If it was just the state, then I might even be able to live with it, as my trust in my government is rather high, even if I do agree with your second paragraph on principle. The problem though is that lax/non-existent privacy laws also allow Joe in marketing and his friends to do all kinds of creepy privacy-invading things, which I worry about much more. It fosters a mentality and culture around how to get the easiest to those who are most susceptible to whatever it is your peddling, and in today's day and age of social media I think it's fair to say that it's increasingly clear that that kind of culture isn't exactly a net favor for humanity as a whole. It's probably naive from me but I'm honestly much more worried about big tech and their nonchalant approach to privacy than I am about dangers of my government going full surveillance state. The two issues are of course not entirely separate either, they're very much intertwined.

pjc50 3y ago
Don't forget the press. I had occasion to look up Chris Huhne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne) as the energy secretary who kicked off the UK new nuclear programme, and right at the top of his wikipedia is .. the phone hacking scandal. Private surveillance by the press, which has been used for a wide variety of malicious gossip purposes rather than any kind of "speaking truth to power".
theonlybutlet 3y ago
A good example is Venezuela, this was a car crash in slow motion. I remember the incremental changes made to law being reported right throughout Hugo Chávez' term in office right from the beginning. He was wildly popular everyone trusted him, many warned of its implications each time a law was proposed and reported. And here we are today, Venezuela is a dictatorship. As the saying goes, it happens slowly and then all at once.
southernplaces7 3y ago
>as my trust in my government is rather high Then you're very fortunate to live in one of the minority of places in the world where government is even moderately trustworthy. Many, possibly most people, dont and the tools of the surveillance state are increasingly being applied by their governments to further repress possible sources of change from that governing mean.

southernplaces7 3y ago

>ignores the fundamental importance of privacy as a human right. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about maintaining individual autonomy, freedom of thought, and the right to a personal life unscrutinized by an overreaching state. It's impressive how many people make this argument and then turn right around to fully support the full plethora of modern KYC and AML laws with all their dubious justifications and even more dubious applications with absolutely no sense of the double standard. One supposes that a rght to privacy, individual autonomy and a life unscrutinized by an orreaching state also should include these things applied firmly to ones financial life, at least enough that any larish transaction isn't treated as if it's potentially criminal right off the bat.

belter 3y ago

> History has shown us, time and again, that tools created for one purpose can and often are repurposed for more sinister ends. Back in 2008... "UK terror law used for Iceland deposits" - https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b1f8 https://www.ft.com/content/55398517-1ea9-3248-8205-3268e037b...