How do you argue with

How do you argue with
>if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

Other urls found in this thread:

tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Le give me all your info le right now. Tell me your le credit card details.

I tell them that my home is not a hiding place, but that doesn't mean stupid niggers can waltz right in when they feel like it.

>failed as a poet
>almost committed sodoku
>became GOAT propaganda minister

We're all gonna make it bros

everyone in this board have child porn stored
thread ended

Because it works. If you're perfectly OK with the government going through all your shit, you shouldn't have a problem with a regular joe like me going through all your shit.

>Giving up on privacy because you have nothing to fear is equal to giving up on free speech because you have nothing to say.

Not caring about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like not caring about free speech because you have nothing to say.

you have nothing to hide*

Is this snowden sentence really that good?

Like, those two are completly different things desu

>Sometimes I'm afraid to get out of bed in the morning. There's nothing to get up for
>mfw story of my life

it's the same as saying you don't need free speech because you got nothing to say

>show me your pepe folder

Trusting some random dude on the internet with your credit card details is different from trusting the police with your ID. The police has the right to know if you're doing something illegal. Some anonymous dude doesn't have any right to see "what you don't have to hide".

there are several arguments.

1. everybody has something, some information about themselves, they would rather control themselves. and they should have the right to.
2. it goes both ways. if there are no secrets for citizens to have, there should also be full, unconditional transparency of absolutely everything the governing body does at all times. because, you know, if you've got nothing to hide... the same goes for corporations, of course, at which point it would really, really become interesting.

my personal opinion, although this is actually difficult to argue, is that the world wouldn't work with at least some level of rules-bending, some basic level of crime. it's just in human nature to be a little disobedient of the rules; that's why virtually everybody has tried smoking weed at some point in their lives, that's why virtually everybody has shoplifted at some point in their lives, that's why virtually everyone goes faster than the speed limit at least every once in a while. rules are there as a basic framework for humans to live together but nobody is really every served by strictly enforcing every rule we have ever made for ourselves. this is btw recognized in police law, as it states in most states that for minor offenses, police can choose to not prosecute if it doesn't serve public interest. if we drop this practice and start strictly enforcing every little rule, society will go even more to shit than it already has thanks to the catastrophic misdistribution of wealth.

Because your government won't be well intentioned in going through your stuff, what if the information leaks, or a bad government operator leaks stuff to bad people that will kindap, steal, know your shit,

This kinda makes sense. Particularly 2

they're actually not that different, no.

this entire discussion largely ignores the vast difference between "illegal" and "evil". there often is somewhat of a gap between law and public interest.

I like option 2 very much.
Snowden be like: If you have nothing to hide, why cry about the leaks :^)

this is not about your ID. this is about monitoring everything you do, which comes down exactly to "some random dude on the internet having my credit card information", seeing how i'm not even a US citizen nor do i live in the US and an NSA employee is thus nothing more than some randum dude on the internet to me.

fourth amendment
/thread

Nice strawman

these are the Bruce Schneier and the Michael Hayden viewpoints. they are more than valid. i'm not sure, however, if this was supposed a technical or a philosophical discussion of the matter.

not a strawman. called "analogy".

Privacy and freedom of speech are not analogous.

They are

Ask them if they'd be okay with undressing or going to the bathroom in public, while being filmed. After all, if they're not doing anything wrong, why should they care about privacy?

Americans are so botnet they have absolutely no idea how fucked the world is. of course they say shit like this. india is literally overflowing with shit, china is on the verge of environmental apocalypse (80% of water is undrinkable; air quality is like smoking cigarettes), middle east is fucked to the stone age, africa always been fucked, south america is a giant drug farm. i live amoung them and no one has a clue what is going on they're just botnet to hell. how could anyone question the need for millions of people to need anonymity. doesn't matter, just let another tyrant like sadam (being cliché for the clueless) come to power and we'll just kill another million kids.

Monitoring everything you do on the internet doesn't mean seeing your transactions details.

It means seeing whatever you are browsing. Some banks give you a device which creates a secure key that you use to log in. This kind of transaction can't be really monitored because it involves offline encryption.

I do have shit to hide. I dissent. I partake in occasional civil disobedience. I favor extremely unpopular political movements.

All of this could be used against me should I ever get into politics.

And anyone who can't say the same is a sad fucking lemming.

>Like, those two are completly different things desu
They're actually not, as I've explained here

any celebrity who supports botnet should release transcripts of the therapy they go to, since they're all degenerate drug addicts

I have not because I have a security clearance, so that shuts those idiots up immediately when I tell them so.

...

"Those who give up essential liberty for a little bit of temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

What if I do have something to hide?

That's why I support privacy and freedom

"xd no"

good job

>tfw you will never be bros with Goebbels

>"have fun getting your data stolen when the shitty government data protection is pwned by a ballsy skiddie"

>letting strangers in government know more about your daily life than your own family
>being A-OK with it
What's wrong with people? Has there been some widespread brainwashing program in the west that we're unaware of? Why are people ok with surveillance of everything they do?

The simple answer is you don't know what tomorrow holds. Let's explore the issue with this argument using a hypothetical situation:

Say you're using Windows 10 and don't care about all the telemetry and so on because you feel you have nothing to hide. You install your normal utilities and so on like Firefox or Chrome and your favorite media player like MPV or VLC or MPC or whatever, and you install good ol' WinRAR.

Now, a few years down the line, in a last-ditch effort to prevent themselves from going bankrupt, RARLAB goes to court over all the people using WinRAR past the 40 day free trial and argues that they are circumventing its protection by continuing to use it. Somehow, they win, and a judge finds all the users of WinRAR who didn't pay for it (yourself included) liable for $150 in damages for every week past the 40 day trial that they continued to not pay for WinRAR.
Now, Windows' telemetry data is used in the case to identify all users who installed WinRAR and the dates they installed it, including yours. You are now liable for thousands of dollars in damages for simply installing a program, even if you never opened or used it, because you thought you had nothing to hide.

"But I don't use WinRAR/I bought WinRAR/etc." - There are thousands of variations on this situation, one of them is bound to apply to you.
You should never take for granted the value of privacy, you never know what sort of criminal the future could make you.

tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf

The solution is simple: Just don't use pirated versions of WinRar!

/thread

You dont decide what you have to hide. You dont know what you have to hide. And it can also change on a whim, especially when being observed by the government.

t. legalbro

Not to mention you have no control over what is done with your information.

why if the ones that check if i hide something give me reasons to hide things from them?

The government is hiding things from you, either they don't believe in their own words or they're doing something wrong

I don't. Only a complete and utter fucktard would try and argue with truth.

>>if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear
Except the people who tell lies about you.
Reality won't help you then.

Bend over, officer. I need to check your anus for drugs. What? "No," You say? Well obviously you're the one hiding something. I'm going to have to report you.

Ask them if they're a better person than MLK.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life

When have humans ever proven to be trustworthy, ever? Everyone should be able to hide their own shit including you. What, is freedom too much for you? Would you rather take a step towards slavery not only for yourself but to spite your fellows?

tl;dr

>if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear

>if I have nothing to hide you have no reason to look

You have nothing to hide until the government decides something about your life is a problem, whether that be your religion, political views, etc.

That's retarded. They don't know if you have anything to hide or not. That's why they need to look.

They're just reassuring you if you really do have nothing to hide.

>sodoku
I think you misspelled suicide Mr. Anonymous

I think you misspelled sudoku, Mr. Anonymous

ay your a cheeky wanker I'll give you that

But what if i DO have something to hide?
Anonymity matter, especially when I'm living in a commie country

A lot of people are bringing up good points in this thread.
Sup Forums thread actually has me thinking.

But should you get into politics isn't it expected that you have a transparent background?

The police is corrupt. In your ideal world that's okay, but we don't live in it.

Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I don't need to justify my rights, as they are mine from birth. Just like I don't need to justify my right to free speech or my right to bear arms.

In order to attack or defend these rights, both sides need to ask themselves what the legitimate role of government is.

Being from the US, I have wonderful blueprints. The Declaration of Independence is why, and the Constitution is how. So, if you subscribe to Constitutionalism, you would say that you believe that individuals, when left alone and given the freedom to make their own decisions, tend to do so more effectively than government bureaucrats in Washington, and therefore, it is morally imperative for the government to protect and guarantee people with said freedom and liberty as laid out in the United States Constitution.

Good post, hits the nail right on the head.

TL;DR shit changes and if they have info about you you could get fucked

if the government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear. oh nope the government gets to keep its secrets but not citizens?
the government gets to keep their guns, but not citizens?
How are centralized control structures any safer than decentralized ones?

>Why not?
Why? There is no need. The advantages are marginal at best and the disadvantages are catastrophic at worst.

>How are centralized control structures any safer than decentralized ones?
They aren't. They aren't safer, they aren't more efficient, and they aren't more cost effective, which is why the US wanted the individual Cities, Counties, and States to have their own form of Government, with the US government only taking an interest in matters that reflected on constitutional rights. Centralized power is like yoking two horses together. Both horses will only go as fast as the slowest horse.

How about there is a reason I have a door on my house? If I didn't I would just let everyone in.

Reminder that only plebs trust the government implicitly. The government can't even keep its own secrets secret, why in fuck's name would you trust them with ANYTHING that you don't have to?

Do you not realize that massive dossiers of information on people around the globe have inherent value to advertisers? A dossier on you WILL be sold. And sold. And sold. And eventually, I'll be able to pay pennies for access to everything about you.

Thank you for making your identity so easy for me to steal, you fucking lemming.

Is this from something? My professor has said this almost verbatim.

It might be. I know I've heard it or read it somewhere else before (at least something similar), and committed it to memory. It's worth remembering.

Yeah, it's quite good. Are you by chance a professor?

>almost committed sodoku

No.

Nobody shows their true self 100% of the time. Nobody acts the same way with their grandmother as with their friends. It's a fundamental part of being human.

So obviously, if you are trying to take that away, you don't understand what it is to be human.

Your move, Lizard Overseer.

It's probably OK. I don't think a government has ever killed anybody.

A lot of these are fucking stupid and deal with unnecessary "what if" scenarios and childish "gotcha" arguments. No, giving my personal financial details to a random stranger is not the same as giving it to the government with much more to lose if caught and relatively MUCH less to gain from immediately defrauding me through the use of that information.

Plain and simple. I have nothing to hide right now. BUT when the government suddenly decides that blank (guns, gays, property, knowledge, dissent, whatever the fuck the other person values, literally anything) is illegal I don't want the government to have the ability to search me at will in a million different ways and be able to run me through the legal system straight to a prison or a cell with no cameras before i can blink. For this reason I appose such searches without reasonable warrant

This image sums it up pretty well.

Considering most of the guys sifting through the data collected by dragnet surveillance are probably underpaid can't-poo-in-loo pajeets, it's a real problem.

Human civilization would have never advanced if people could not hide things from the general public and the government.
Movements and revolutions would have been stopped before they could ever gain traction.
The people who want to be able to see everything are the most secretive of all.
If the government need privacy to protect it's interests than so do I.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

Hey! The original quote. I hadn't seen it before.

>A lot of these are fucking stupid and deal with unnecessary "what if" scenarios
>I have nothing to hide right now. BUT when the government suddenly decides that blank (guns, gays, property, knowledge, dissent, whatever the fuck the other person values, literally anything) is illegal I don't want the government to ...
S N O W F L A K E

if you have such an adversarial relationship with the government maybe it's indicative of how much you're involved in it.

It's a democracy for a reason, representative or otherwise.

Not him, but this means that my opinion alone won't change things much.

Most politicians think banning encryption is a reasonable idea.

only for other people, though
all their files will still be encrypted

Well since the US government has routinely been so fond of grouping encryption methods into the same category as real-life blood-drawing people-killing weapons, how about this analogy:

Citizens shouldn't be allowed to own bullet proof vests in case the police need to be able to shoot people (rogue citizens only of course) without needing armor-piercing rounds.

This always annoys me. Trying to force other people to open their information but refusing yourself.

A bullet proof vest is a great analogy.

Or we could try to get encryption considered a gun in America. At least that way some people will defend it.

...

Everyone has something to hide.
Anything can be used against you.

Honestly I would be cool with taking an absolutist approach to the freedom of speech. I feel that the Constitution has been poorly upheld in that sense since the early 1900s. Laws against hate speech and the classic "Shouting fire in a crowded room" parable. Schenck v. United States is especially troubling.

>Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war

This is super bad news guys. It means that the more fragile and susceptible to "problematic language" the citizens get, the more the government is able to limit our free speech.

>Hey guys, we just invented this chip that can read your thoughts. Mind getting it implanted real quick? Don't worry - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Here's one: any law a benevolent government passes today, can be used against the people by a future malevolent government.

Example: Using terrorism as a motive to legalize and easily enable going through people's personal files without obstruction today for to save them from said terrorism. In 50 years a government set on dictatorship and population control is not breaking any laws and using that old law unjustly against it's population.

Just because nobody would misuse it today, doesn't mean nobody will in the future.

Never give them an inch, and fight forever for your freedom.

How? You need other people to have free speech if you have nothing to say hence why you should care. You don't need other people to have privacy.

Also having nothing to say is seen as negative while nothing to hide is seen as positive.

You don't want other people looking /smarter/ than you, do you?

Sure Uncle Sam! I will tell you all my secrets as soon as you tell me yours. After all, you shouldnt be enforcing rules onto people which you cannot subdue to yourself first.

Absolutely nothing new is going to come from debating this issue. This issue is hundreds of years old and has already been explored to death.

Some people will pretend there's more to discuss because of technological changes, but there's not. All you have to do to prevent the modern world from becoming a tyrannical hell hole is apply the exact same well-reasoned protections that the founding fathers agreed on in the 18th century. The fourth amendment was perfectly clear.

Unfortunately our joke politicians have chosen to ignore the statesmen who preceded them.

Rick Falkvinge explained it well here:
falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/