4 ms·
I don't mean to pile on, but this comment reminds me of Eric Schmidt's comment that "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". There are a
by jalanco 14y ago
I don't mean to pile on, but this comment reminds me of Eric Schmidt's comment that "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". There are at least a couple of things wrong with this sentiment:
(1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes, all your digital assets, etc. And by "etc" I mean also strip searching your family members or loved ones if "necessary". Did I go too far there? If so why? Because after all, "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear". Who gets to decide how far is too far?
(2) And you might respond, "but these aren't strangers searching my stuff and family, these are duly authorized government officials." Well, duly authorized government officials are flawed human beings like all of us, and the ones doing the searching are most likely not elected by anyone.
And also, these people in power at the moment, whose motives you trust, will most definitely not be in power forever. One day, there will be authorities in power whose motives you don't trust at all, maybe for very good reasons. What then?
That's why the erosion of privacy rights is worth fighting.
- Karunamon 14y ago<post type="devils-advocate"> >if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house etc etc Your point made here is nothing but a pure combination of reduction to the absurd and the slippery slope fallacy...
- jalanco 14y agoOuch! Please feel free to elaborate because I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. I mean, are you saying that you believe that the people given the authority to invade your privacy always have good intentions? Because I don't believe that. In the real world, these authorities are often driven by pressure to "find something", or to "make a quota", or to "prove our worth". And the results often harm innocent people.
- Karunamon 14y agoWell, okay. >(1) if you really believe that, then you would have no problem with a group of strangers searching your house, your bank records, safety deposit boxes, all your digital assets, etc. No, actually I wouldn't, because there's an entire freakin' universe of difference between cops searching your house, destroying things, having your neighbors wonder WTF is going on and having an open profile on a social network (which is what that oft-maligned quote was talking about) Someone digging through your possessions (and strip searching your family, feckin' seriously?) is kind of not even similar to an email being picked up by an automated computer system.
- mhurron 14y agoWarrentless wiretaping is 'digging through your possessions'. It is 'strip searching your family'. This is not 'oops, I put my drunk picture public on Facebook.' That email is stored. It is cataloged. It is cross referenced with every other email that is sent. It is referenced with every crime that is investigated that even remotely has the same keywords as that mail. It is indexed in relation to those you associate with and those they associate with. It is used to create a profile of every little subversive or thing you may ever be tangentially associated with and used against you. This bill allows it to be done warentless because otherwise a warrent would be required. To relate this to what you choose to put on a social networking site is not even in the same ballpark as what the NSA is doing here.
- alayne 14y agoIndiscriminate wiretapping and data gathering is worse than targeted strip searching with probable cause. In the U.S., it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- Karunamon 14y agoPS: Thanks for the downvote disagreement guys.