3 ms·

The number one reason for the government to create a comprehensive register of something is enable later legislation to ban it. We've seen this several times in

The number one reason for the government to create a comprehensive register of something is enable later legislation to ban it. We've seen this several times in Canada with firearms - first a law requiring registration of a certain class of firearms, and then once the government knows where they all are, a new piece of legislation requiring them to be surrendered. The more information the government has, the more it enables future oppressive action.

afterburner 14y ago
Let's try to keep the gun control debate separate from the privacy debate. Despite the shared aspect of the individual, these are entirely separate issues. I can't extremely easily kill someone with my private information. Private information is not a direct tool for committing violent crime, or for that matter, hunting game.
- rmc 14y ago
  Not to mention that some countries have radically different gun laws from the USA, and some people who support privacy don't want to be seen like those crazies over there who think everyone needs more guns.
- eigenvector 14y ago
  You seem to have misunderstood my point. I'm not commenting on whether or not it is appropriate to ban guns. I'm merely using information /about/ guns (not the actual possession or use thereof) as an example. I think it's a salient point no matter how you feel about the ownership of firearms. Registering a person's lawful property or activities (whatever they may be) is a great way to target them in the future. If the government decided to outlaw, say, baking soda, it would be prohibitively difficult to enforce because there is no existing mechanism for tracking the sale, ownership and transfer of baking soda. Persons owning baking soda could easily bury it in their backyard and claim they never had it. Not so if the gov't has an inventory of all of your property (or access to your credit card statements, for example). So my point is in line with the OP: simply because an activity is lawful doesn't me we should accept unlimited government surveillance of it.

afterburner 14y ago

Let's try to keep the gun control debate separate from the privacy debate. Despite the shared aspect of the individual, these are entirely separate issues. I can't extremely easily kill someone with my private information. Private information is not a direct tool for committing violent crime, or for that matter, hunting game.

rmc 14y ago
Not to mention that some countries have radically different gun laws from the USA, and some people who support privacy don't want to be seen like those crazies over there who think everyone needs more guns.
eigenvector 14y ago
You seem to have misunderstood my point. I'm not commenting on whether or not it is appropriate to ban guns. I'm merely using information /about/ guns (not the actual possession or use thereof) as an example. I think it's a salient point no matter how you feel about the ownership of firearms. Registering a person's lawful property or activities (whatever they may be) is a great way to target them in the future. If the government decided to outlaw, say, baking soda, it would be prohibitively difficult to enforce because there is no existing mechanism for tracking the sale, ownership and transfer of baking soda. Persons owning baking soda could easily bury it in their backyard and claim they never had it. Not so if the gov't has an inventory of all of your property (or access to your credit card statements, for example). So my point is in line with the OP: simply because an activity is lawful doesn't me we should accept unlimited government surveillance of it.