5 ms·

State the principle.

• gouggoug 2y ago
  The right for privacy and not being constantly filmed, monitored and recorded. That principle.
  • grugagag 2y ago
    Not worried about leaks?
  • ahazred8ta 2y ago
    "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own." -- Patrick McGoohan, The Prisoner
  • rvnx 2y ago
    If you voted for the lawmakers in power, it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level. If you didn't vote for them, these laws still represent the choice of the majority (or at least of their representatives). Either way, surveillance laws are a direct consequence of our democratic process and must be acknowledged as such.
    • XMPPwocky 2y ago
      Did you reply to the right post? You say "it's your responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and to check at that level"- but all I see in the parent comments is people discussing politics. People saying "I think this law is bad" is a critical part of the exact democratic process you seem to hold in high regard. That's how you get a consensus among the electorate that can push representatives to oppose future surveillance legislation and repeal existing stuff. (If you replied to the wrong comment, and meant to say this to somebody proposing overthrowing democracy or whatever, disregard my comment, obviously!)
      • rvnx 2y ago
        I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Because here, we have a series of people who don't like the law (potentially for good reasons). If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things (additional control during plane boarding, to have border guards, to allow spying on private messages, etc). The "majority" defended their right; the right to feel safe. A bit like someone who does Open Carry in a state who doesn't want you to show weapons. It may be not dangerous if you openly have a weapon, but other people still voted against that for their own reasons.
        • gouggoug 2y ago
          > I suggest to go and talk with the people who make the laws rather than make on-the-spot scandal with the agents. Opting-out isn't "making a scandal". You can both opt-out and "talk with the people who make the laws", one doesn't preclude the other. > If the law is like that, it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things That is an idealistic view not grounded in reality at all.
        • chimpanzee 2y ago
          > it's because we have a "majority" (unless democracy is cheated) who voted for such things > other people still voted against that for their own reasons You are describing a direct democracy, not the representative democracy that actually exists. There are plenty of examples of laws, existent and nonexistent, whose status has little to do with the preferences of the general public. One need only look where there is a conflict between the general public’s interest and that of the government. Surveillance is prime territory.
  • Spivak 2y ago
    Well we don't have a right to privacy anymore so it's hard to argue even a basic principle, thanks SC.
• rgrieselhuber 2y ago
  The entitlement in your imperative demonstrated the principle.
• elphinstone 2y ago
  State the principal that says totalitarians have the right to oppress. Don't make bad faith arguments that burden the innocent to state the obvious.
• j2kun 2y ago
  The principle to exercise your rights, for any reason you please and without having to explain yourself.
  • 1659447091 2y ago
    Sadly enough, this is the one most people who ask me why I opt out of face rec at airports don't seem to "get". They probe for more info, as if there needs to be some extraordinary reason for opting out to be justified over simply going along with it. "They already have your photo". Yes, I know. I gave it to them in exchange for documents that grant international travel privileges. The rules/laws also say I can opt out of face rec and are posted on that big ass sign. I exercised my rights as a citizen to apply for documents within the rules allowed. Now I am excising my rights to the part that says I can opt out of having my pic taken every time I want to get on a plane. I would like more clarity on the storage of the bio info derived from the photos. My guess is they keep updating profiles every time they take the pic, but discard the actual photo. This is not why I opt out, but like the salami slicing up-thread, I would guess they are waiting for everyone to get use to the pic at TSA before removing the opt-out clause and letting everyone know they are storing it to update profiles - for your safety. I am just waiting for that big leak, and then massive bio id fraud that will be harder to clean up than it is now. I know someone that has been a victim of id fraud (complete nightmare), I can't even imagine how one would clean that up once bio fraud becomes the norm.
  • CPLX 2y ago
    That's definitely a reasonable point of view. There's another point of view though that says that the aviation system is particularly fragile, and of course it has a history of being used for acts of extreme violence. So there's a compelling state interest question here. Like I think people definitely DO and SHOULD have the right to be secure in their own homes, in their personal papers, and to be free from surveillance of their personal life. I'm extremely amenable to the idea that you should be able to "exercise your rights, for any reason you please and without having to explain yourself" in that regard. I think it's also clear that the rights one has are going to be circumscribed when participating in the aviation system. So it's more a matter of degree than principle.
• __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  The ability to go do something anonymously, perhaps some act of protest or resistance or sabotage, and then resume normal life afterwards without having to live forever after as a fugitive, it contributes to the legitimacy of a system that requires us to occasionally make compromises like being groped by TSA. So long as I can assume an anonymous role on occasion, and other people can too, I must think twice before doing anything destructively rash. Nobody else has bombed this thing yet, and they surely could, so perhaps it exists with the consent of the people around it. But if surveillance and control exceeds some ill defined threshold such that its not clear that so many of us actually could get away with fighting back against the machinery of control that surrounds us. Well then one must question whether it actually exists with our consent. And in that case, if we're lucky enough to be able to get away with dismantling it, it very well may be our responsibility to do so. That's the principle. There must still be some line not yet crossed. Because otherwise there's nothing to do besides fight. So we don't let them cross whatever the arbitrary line is because most of us are not prepared for the fight.
  • sofixa 2y ago
    The issue with that "principle" is that it takes one person, who could very well be from a different society with different ideas of consent, or just a suicidal lunatic or someone in for an insurance scam, to ruin it for everyone.
    • pineaux 2y ago
      There is no real way around this.
      • __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        I'm not sure if we're worried that the outliers are at the top exerting illegitimate control or at the bottom undermining it without justification but either way I agree that there are no easy answers here. It's just something you've got to navigate if you want to have a society.
      • deleted 2y ago
• dmichulke 2y ago
  "I don't want to" is enough as long as I'm not legally obliged. It doesn't matter for my purposes whether you agree with this as a principle.