5 ms·

I'm actually surprised that the 4th Amendment isn't referenced more frequently in refutation to the asinine "nothing to hide" position. "Nothing to hide" is th

I'm actually surprised that the 4th Amendment isn't referenced more frequently in refutation to the asinine "nothing to hide" position. "Nothing to hide" is thematically similar to the groan-inducing "Do you want the terrorists to win?" arguments against civil liberties, in favor of increased security measures, proferred and popularly supported in the mid-2000s. (Sadly, many of the legacies and artifacts of that position still persist). The answer to any of these half-baked arguments should always begin with something along the lines of "Because we're better than that." Because we have a constitution that assumes we're good people, and that protects our civil liberties from invasion. Because these things are so fundamental to our nation's purpose that giving them up is much worse than being attacked. Giving them up threatens the very purpose of the country's founding. Even to entertain these arguments, i.e., by trying to cite examples of areas of privacy or liberty that are negotiable, areas that aren't, and so forth, is to stoop low. It is to lose before the argument has actually begun. It is to accept the faulty premise that privacy is about hiding something -- that it is an active attempt to conceal information from the world. No, privacy isn't the action being taken. Invasion of privacy is the action. Privacy is simply a state of being, and one to which we have an inalienable right. Privacy isn't something we opt into; it is something we don't even really consider until we are made, or compelled, or asked to opt out. "Nothing to hide" begs the question. It assumes, as a foregone premise, that privacy is an opt-in decision that we consciously undertake in defense of something (and that something is implied to be onerous or illegal). This is just fallacious logic, plain and simple. It's unfortunate that a right to privacy wasn't inumerated directly in the constitution, but was instead defined indirectly. This is one of those areas where the founders really couldn't have known how far technology would go, and how important something like privacy -- which may have been taken for granted back then -- would become 200+ years later.

DanielRibeiro 14y ago
The "nothing to fear/nothing to hide" also goes against the Presumption of innocence[1], present in many countries' civil law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
andrewflnr 14y ago
The bulk of your logic makes sense, besides depending on taking "privacy is an inalienable right" as a premise. However, on a practical level... "Because we're better than that" In order to fight a war[0] from a "better than that" position, you have to have vastly greater power, enough to compensate for the hobbles you put on yourself to remain "better". Otherwise, whoever fights dirtiest wins. When people are trying to kill us, how do we make up for not listening to them, without letting people die? [0] In a loose sense. Terrorists try to kill us, and the only way to stop them is with force. A lot of the same principles apply.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  The only way to stop existing terrorists may be to kill them. The things that go into stopping prospective terrorists from becoming actual terrorists are more complicated.
  - JohannL 14y ago
    "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." -- Noam Chomsky
    - theorique 14y ago
      Somebody tell Al Qaeda. I'm sure they'll listen to a reasoned debate.
      - JohannL 14y ago
        Absence of terrorism doesn't imply absence of self-defense, so any point you might think you have, you don't. And hey, maybe that's just because Noam Chomsky thinks about the things he says; might want to try it yourself sometime.
- khuey 14y ago
  But we do have vastly greater power. Terrorist groups definitely don't have a budget of 680 billion USD[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...
hcurtiss 14y ago
You're close here, but you're missing the big picture. It's not that the constitution assumes we're good people. It's that many of the founders were suspicious of large central governments. The anti-federalists insisted upon a bill of rights as a condition to ratification. I would assert that most of the bill of rights is about protecting the ability to of the people revolt against the government: First Amendment - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. Ensuring that me and my buddies can get together and talk about overthrowing the government. Second Amendment - right to bear arms. Ensuring I have the ability to inflict harm on/protect myself from government actors. Third Amendment - right against quartering troops. Ensuring the government can't put soldiers in my house to listen to me or intimidate me. Fourth Amendment - right against unreasonable search and seizure. The government can't come in and take my stuff unless and until I do something "wrong." I could go on, but to my view, is all about revolution. There may be those who think we've moved to a place in society where governments like ours are benevolent and that the majority will is always right. I don't. Maybe people think that hanging onto such rights is futile given F-16s and M1 Abrams. I think our difficulty in Afghanistan and Iraq is a pretty good refutation of that position. Privacy is important because, without it, bad guys can make us slaves.
- vacri 14y ago
  The second amendment talks about a well-regulated militia. That doesn't sound like it's intended to be protection against one's own government, but against invading armies.
  - noblethrasher 14y ago
    I'd like to point out, for the benefit of others, that the term well-regulated simply meant 'effective' or 'in proper working order'. It did not necessarily mean that it should be controlled by the government. Source:http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
    - vacri 14y ago
      What about the 'militia' part? Or the 'being necessary for the security of a free state' part? The second amendment is saying 'we're not going to restrict arms, because we need a body of men to call on who know how to use arms, in order to maintain our independence', not 'fear your government, be prepared to shoot its representitives'.
strictfp 14y ago
> Do you want the terrorists to win? The terrorists have won if we give up our freedoms in fear of them. That is their whole tactic.

DanielRibeiro 14y ago

The "nothing to fear/nothing to hide" also goes against the Presumption of innocence[1], present in many countries' civil law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

andrewflnr 14y ago

The bulk of your logic makes sense, besides depending on taking "privacy is an inalienable right" as a premise. However, on a practical level... "Because we're better than that" In order to fight a war[0] from a "better than that" position, you have to have vastly greater power, enough to compensate for the hobbles you put on yourself to remain "better". Otherwise, whoever fights dirtiest wins. When people are trying to kill us, how do we make up for not listening to them, without letting people die? [0] In a loose sense. Terrorists try to kill us, and the only way to stop them is with force. A lot of the same principles apply.

dllthomas 14y ago
The only way to stop existing terrorists may be to kill them. The things that go into stopping prospective terrorists from becoming actual terrorists are more complicated.
- JohannL 14y ago
  "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." -- Noam Chomsky
  - theorique 14y ago
    Somebody tell Al Qaeda. I'm sure they'll listen to a reasoned debate.
    - JohannL 14y ago
      Absence of terrorism doesn't imply absence of self-defense, so any point you might think you have, you don't. And hey, maybe that's just because Noam Chomsky thinks about the things he says; might want to try it yourself sometime.
khuey 14y ago
But we do have vastly greater power. Terrorist groups definitely don't have a budget of 680 billion USD[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_for_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...

hcurtiss 14y ago

You're close here, but you're missing the big picture. It's not that the constitution assumes we're good people. It's that many of the founders were suspicious of large central governments. The anti-federalists insisted upon a bill of rights as a condition to ratification. I would assert that most of the bill of rights is about protecting the ability to of the people revolt against the government: First Amendment - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. Ensuring that me and my buddies can get together and talk about overthrowing the government. Second Amendment - right to bear arms. Ensuring I have the ability to inflict harm on/protect myself from government actors. Third Amendment - right against quartering troops. Ensuring the government can't put soldiers in my house to listen to me or intimidate me. Fourth Amendment - right against unreasonable search and seizure. The government can't come in and take my stuff unless and until I do something "wrong." I could go on, but to my view, is all about revolution. There may be those who think we've moved to a place in society where governments like ours are benevolent and that the majority will is always right. I don't. Maybe people think that hanging onto such rights is futile given F-16s and M1 Abrams. I think our difficulty in Afghanistan and Iraq is a pretty good refutation of that position. Privacy is important because, without it, bad guys can make us slaves.

vacri 14y ago
The second amendment talks about a well-regulated militia. That doesn't sound like it's intended to be protection against one's own government, but against invading armies.
- noblethrasher 14y ago
  I'd like to point out, for the benefit of others, that the term well-regulated simply meant 'effective' or 'in proper working order'. It did not necessarily mean that it should be controlled by the government. Source:http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
  - vacri 14y ago
    What about the 'militia' part? Or the 'being necessary for the security of a free state' part? The second amendment is saying 'we're not going to restrict arms, because we need a body of men to call on who know how to use arms, in order to maintain our independence', not 'fear your government, be prepared to shoot its representitives'.

strictfp 14y ago

> Do you want the terrorists to win? The terrorists have won if we give up our freedoms in fear of them. That is their whole tactic.