I support it 100%, because I have everything to hide as my life is mine and doesn't belong to anyone else, including governments or improbable divinities. If for some people in power this mean I'm either a murderer, a rapist, a drug dealer, a pedophile, a terrorist, or whatever, they're free to spend taxpayers money to find out how wrong their assumptions were, then get voted out of their seats.
Anyone using the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is just pushing you into relinquishing your privacy rights to gain power over you. Just try asking them their own passwords and hear the very predictable reply.
Intelligence does exist for the purpose of catching people doing nasty things even when they do it behind the curtain. Making curtains illegal would be the obvious stupid response which would harm everyone.
Nobody ever said that democracy is either free or easy; a bunch more criminals at large sometimes somewhere is a price we have to pay to have billions of people, including us, enjoying what remains of their freedom.
Just to avoid the most predictable counter argument: I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family.
“ If for some people in power this mean I'm either a murderer, a rapist, a drug dealer, a pedophile, a terrorist, or whatever, they're free to spend taxpayers money to find out how wrong their assumptions were, then get voted out of their seats. ”
They don’t believe this; it’s an argument framed in a bad faith so that they can strip peoples rights and jam laws down our throats. Their mastery is in framing. Never use Or repeat their frame.
See George Lakoff’s work in framing. It’s essential in environment of heavy propaganda.
"See George Lakoff’s work in framing. It’s essential in environment of heavy propaganda."
A bit late but thanks for suggesting Lakoff. I'm 1/3 through the video linked by another user and am loving it; it should be dubbed in other languages and spread around.
* truth sandwich time (if you only listen to one make it this one)
* how republicans really think (if you only listen to one make it this one, too)
* how trump uses twitter to control the media (very eye opening)
* guns over people (on how to frame the gun debate)
Also, this lecture on political language exposes the leverage hooks politicians and propagandists use to hook and manipulate us. You will never listen/read political speech the same.
I love this argument. I would also add that the individual is sovereign. Meaning, in the US at least, our view of the origin of government is that government is granted its powers by the people. A government cannot inherit a right that it’s citizens don’t possess. Therefore if governments have a right to free speech, bear arms, etc.. so must it’s citizens. Other western democracies do not trace the origin of government power to the people... The UK and the larger British Empire for example trace the origin back to God as manifest in the monarchy. The modern German and French welfare states trace their origins to the state — a nameless collective organized to benefit its citizen’s welfare (with any rights conveyed to citizens a matter of convenience rather than a source of power). Yes I might be expressing a rather neo-con / superior attitude but if you simply equate the origin of individual rights in programming terms - In the US, individual rights are the global variable from which everything originates. The French and German versions are essentially undeclared variables and the UK inherits it’s rights externally from a black box. Now you tell me, from a programming point of view, which is preferred?
> I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family.
I think that's a bit too far... but I get your point.
When having a discussion around privacy, I had no response to "you shouldn't have anything to hide" because I know privacy should somewhat be a human right (especially given its commoditization) but didn't know exactly why it's so important given that most Gen Z kids are sharing every aspect of their lives on social media.
Maybe you and I have different understandings of what a "right" is. I define a "right" as something that cannot be taken away, and there are very few of these. Your story, your thoughts, and your will, are all you have a right to - while you are alive.
Every other nicety in life is due to mutual respect, agreements and the ability to use force should those agreements be broken.
If I am using a restroom, I don't have a "right" to privacy. Tell that to a prisoner who has to take a shit in front of their cellmates... Even in comfort of your own home, someone could kick the door open. The fact that they don't kick in the door, is due to mutual respect for boundaries. This is what I would call a privilege, which has been mutually _agreed upon by_ and _granted to_ all parties involved.
Privileges make up our freedoms. They are the things that we fight for, and should continue to do so.
We should make an effort to not conflate the two, as it tends to blur the lines and give people a false understanding of what they have a right to intrinsically, vs what they must fight for.
Although I agree with what you're saying, I always thought that a right was something the government gave us after taking it away in the first place, proving that a right is a political term, at least now days.
I've always used intrinsic right as you suggest to describe what you mention, to differentiate the two.
Because the problem lies in the political domain, it's not unexpected that these two ideas (intrinsic rights vs privilege) are deliberately conflated precisely to blur the boundary, making their agenda achievable: the control of people.
My response to the "I have nothing to hide" argument:
i) do you wear clothes? You are hiding yourself! Why not walk naked down the street? You have something to hide.
ii) do you have curtains on your house? Why? (The answer is almost never "to keep out there light") Most people walk fully clothed in their own house. You have something to hide.
I also liken dragnet surveillance (a major reason on why we need E2EE) to upskirting. People have a basic right to assume some privacy even when in public... Otherwise the objectionable practice of upskirting should be legal too.
Why not walk down the street naked? I'd love to, but then I'd get arrested. Irony...
Cheekiness aside ( Pun ;) ), I second your point. "Having something to hide" is frequently conflated with "not wanting to share something with everyone that I don't need to".
> > I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family.
>I think that's a bit too far... but I get your point.
Another way to say this is "I'd uphold this principle if it were your family, and I'd expect you to do the same if it were my family." It's understandable for principles to break down for individuals in extreme (contrived) circumstances, so long as most people abide by them.
Intelligence does exist for the purpose of catching people doing nasty things even when they do it behind the curtain. Making curtains illegal would be the obvious stupid response which would harm everyone. Nobody ever said that democracy is either free or easy; a bunch more criminals at large sometimes somewhere is a price we have to pay to have billions of people, including us, enjoying what remains of their freedom.
Just to avoid the most predictable counter argument: I'd keep defending this principle even in case one of those criminals would exterminate my entire family.