3 ms·

This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that

This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. I feel like it should be self-evident, that law enforcement and liberty are mutually exclusive, and that we have things like warrants to allow that infringement on liberty in very narrow circumstances. Dragnet surveillance is warrant-less evidence gathering.

pavel_lishin 8mo ago
> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it. > the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
- tosapple 8mo ago
  [dead]
- hydrogen7800 8mo ago
  >Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them. Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
  - pavel_lishin 8mo ago
    I mean, one thing you can look at is news stories about the police grabbing the wrong person, trying to find someone who's as much like them as possible - but any example can be rationalized away.
  - bsder 8mo ago
    The Jews in Amsterdam had nothing to hide ... until they did. Do you give everybody your tax returns? No? Then you have something to hide. Do you give everybody your phone records? No? Then you have something to hide. Do you give everybody your web history? No? Then you have something to hide. etc.
    - pavel_lishin 8mo ago
      > Do you give everybody The easy counter-argument to this, which Mr. Stanks alludes to, is that there's a difference between giving everyone data, and giving law enforcement data. But Jews-in-Amsterdam is a pretty good example.
- ahf8Aithaex7Nai 8mo ago
  It's interesting. No one is a 100% law-abiding citizen. You can see this in traffic, for example, when a driver gets upset about pedestrians ignoring red lights, while they themselves are driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit and have the number right in front of them. The transgressions of others should always be severely punished. One's own transgressions are minor trifles that are not worth mentioning, or small privileges that one naturally claims. And when one is penalized a little for one's own misconduct, e.g., with a fine, one acts as if one were a victim of fascist repression.
plagiarist 8mo ago
It is self-evident, and they are doublethinking. You can test this by telling them that police should be required to wear always-on body cams. See how they react to that.

pavel_lishin 8mo ago

> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it. > the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.

tosapple 8mo ago
[dead]
hydrogen7800 8mo ago
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them. Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
- pavel_lishin 8mo ago
  I mean, one thing you can look at is news stories about the police grabbing the wrong person, trying to find someone who's as much like them as possible - but any example can be rationalized away.
- bsder 8mo ago
  The Jews in Amsterdam had nothing to hide ... until they did. Do you give everybody your tax returns? No? Then you have something to hide. Do you give everybody your phone records? No? Then you have something to hide. Do you give everybody your web history? No? Then you have something to hide. etc.
  - pavel_lishin 8mo ago
    > Do you give everybody The easy counter-argument to this, which Mr. Stanks alludes to, is that there's a difference between giving everyone data, and giving law enforcement data. But Jews-in-Amsterdam is a pretty good example.
ahf8Aithaex7Nai 8mo ago
It's interesting. No one is a 100% law-abiding citizen. You can see this in traffic, for example, when a driver gets upset about pedestrians ignoring red lights, while they themselves are driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit and have the number right in front of them. The transgressions of others should always be severely punished. One's own transgressions are minor trifles that are not worth mentioning, or small privileges that one naturally claims. And when one is penalized a little for one's own misconduct, e.g., with a fine, one acts as if one were a victim of fascist repression.

plagiarist 8mo ago

It is self-evident, and they are doublethinking. You can test this by telling them that police should be required to wear always-on body cams. See how they react to that.