4 ms·

The issue is that the public discourse over this topic conflates the human need for privacy with the argument of "I have nothing to hide". These two things are

by TrevorJ 12y ago

The issue is that the public discourse over this topic conflates the human need for privacy with the argument of "I have nothing to hide". These two things are not the same thing. Whether or not you have something to hide has no bearing on our basic need or basic right to privacy. Additionally, no one can really say "I have nothing to hide" and be intellectually honest. The honest statement is "I have nothing to hide yet, that I know of." Why? Two reasons: number one, we live in an environment of selective enforcement. We all, knowingly or not run afoul of the law every day be it copyright law or something else. The corpus of legal code we exist under in this country is far to large for anyone to say with confidence that they have 'nothing to hide'. Secondly: While it may be true that you have nothing to hide right now, how can you know what options, behaviors, or possessions might run afoul of future administrations? History is replete with examples of regimes cleaning house when they come into power, and the digital paper trial we leave makes that all too easy. I'm sure you can counter that argument by saying that could never happen here in the US, but there are plenty of less severe areas where it would be easy to see this happening. What if the federal gov. changes its mind on looking the other way when states legalize a controlled substance and your digital paper trial makes it clear that you may have partaken in the past? There are any number of scenarios where activities and opinions that you deem to be perfectly acceptable now are things you may desire to keep private in the future. The point is, to say you have nothing to hide presumes you can predict the future, and have complete knowledge of the law, which no one person can reasonably posses. We have a system of warrants for a reason, and it is to protect you, as a citizen from these sorts of situations. Do not be so quick to give that up.

karmacondon 12y ago
"The wicked man flees when no one pursues." If everyone was constantly breaking the law then there would be no known criminals who haven't been arrested. There would no John Gottis or Whitey Bulgers. As soon as the government wanted someone arrested, they would just immediately arrest them for breaking copyright law or whatever. No need for the FBI to meticulously build cases, we're all guilty all the time and our only hope is to boycott Dropbox. And if the government suddenly decides to start enforcing ex post facto violations of the law, we're all screwed anyway. There's no point in living your life by being afraid of what might be in and out of fashion in the future. If the government decides to start arresting people who have broken existing laws (not to mention future ones) there there are literally millions of people who have openly admitted to doing drugs or otherwise violating existing prohibitions. I can't think of many cases where the average citizen was prosecuted because they admitted to a minor crime on facebook, not to mention any cases where the government changed their minds on the law and started going after people. I live a normal, boring life and do normal, boring things. I'm not going to get arrested for eating fast food while watching reality tv, or drinking beer and watching sports. I don't do anything that harms (or helps) anyone else, I'm the average American. I have nothing to hide and absolutely no fear of government intelligence collection.
- TrevorJ 12y ago
  I specifically mentioned selective enforcement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement There are over 3000 FEDERAL criminal offenses on the books. (As an estimate, even the gov can't tell you exactly how many. If you think ALL of these fall under common sense then you are kidding yourself. Have you read the thousands of pages that span dozens of volumes to be sure you aren't an offender? You've conveniently side stepped my main first point, which is that we have a right to privacy, and that right has NOTHING to do with our presumed guilt or innocence. To use the argument "I have nothing to hide" misses the point entirely. If you want to walk around exposed, that's fine, but don't argue that the rest of us should be made to.
- icebraining 12y ago
  If everyone was constantly breaking the law then there would be no known criminals who haven't been arrested. There would no John Gottis or Whitey Bulgers. As soon as the government wanted someone arrested, they would just immediately arrest them for breaking copyright law or whatever. The unquestioned premise in your argument is that the government wants all criminals to be arrested.

by TrevorJ 12y ago

karmacondon 12y ago

"The wicked man flees when no one pursues." If everyone was constantly breaking the law then there would be no known criminals who haven't been arrested. There would no John Gottis or Whitey Bulgers. As soon as the government wanted someone arrested, they would just immediately arrest them for breaking copyright law or whatever. No need for the FBI to meticulously build cases, we're all guilty all the time and our only hope is to boycott Dropbox. And if the government suddenly decides to start enforcing ex post facto violations of the law, we're all screwed anyway. There's no point in living your life by being afraid of what might be in and out of fashion in the future. If the government decides to start arresting people who have broken existing laws (not to mention future ones) there there are literally millions of people who have openly admitted to doing drugs or otherwise violating existing prohibitions. I can't think of many cases where the average citizen was prosecuted because they admitted to a minor crime on facebook, not to mention any cases where the government changed their minds on the law and started going after people. I live a normal, boring life and do normal, boring things. I'm not going to get arrested for eating fast food while watching reality tv, or drinking beer and watching sports. I don't do anything that harms (or helps) anyone else, I'm the average American. I have nothing to hide and absolutely no fear of government intelligence collection.

TrevorJ 12y ago
I specifically mentioned selective enforcement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement There are over 3000 FEDERAL criminal offenses on the books. (As an estimate, even the gov can't tell you exactly how many. If you think ALL of these fall under common sense then you are kidding yourself. Have you read the thousands of pages that span dozens of volumes to be sure you aren't an offender? You've conveniently side stepped my main first point, which is that we have a right to privacy, and that right has NOTHING to do with our presumed guilt or innocence. To use the argument "I have nothing to hide" misses the point entirely. If you want to walk around exposed, that's fine, but don't argue that the rest of us should be made to.
icebraining 12y ago
If everyone was constantly breaking the law then there would be no known criminals who haven't been arrested. There would no John Gottis or Whitey Bulgers. As soon as the government wanted someone arrested, they would just immediately arrest them for breaking copyright law or whatever. The unquestioned premise in your argument is that the government wants all criminals to be arrested.