"Your privacy shouldn't matter if you don't have anything to hide!"

>"Your privacy shouldn't matter if you don't have anything to hide!"
Normalfags always say this to defend the government spying. Are there really people out there who have NOTHING to hide, and confident they still won't in the future if laws grow stricter? People who are so vanilla and upstanding they don't have a single shameful fetish, ugly opinion, questionable search history, or illegal download? People who are confident that they'd never get picked up for anything if their entire life was monitored?

The government sure wants to see your porn.

shit what if the government sees my futa collection
am i doomed ? oh noo

Canadian normies must be a bunch of cunts then. Normies here don't use that line of thinking, only baby boomers who don't understand the internet do.

no one says that
they say they think recording everything will improve safety
they are being tricked like kids
also lets be honest, your life is extremly lame and no one has anything interesting to see there

Most of the gen x scum in my family advocates a police state based on monitoring all private households and other crumpetland-tier shit. At the same time, not a single one of them has put up cameras on their property, and one even goes out of his way to avoid getting his picture taken.
Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance.

sounds about it
>lets record everyone but im not a criminal so you can ignore me and focus on others
we have cameras at the exit roads in our towns, that's enough to get me triggered to be honest
yeah ok you can spot where some criminal on the road is going but could you just fuck off

They usually have to get a warrant if they wanna monitor, there must be some basis you're a terrororist.

you guys are truely either too closeminded or too ideological

the real harm in surveillance is the erosion of the built in fallibility of the system
comprehensive surveillance gives the benefit of doubt of deciding right and wrong to the powers that be, when before their job was to only get shit right and present it to a jury of peers

while it might still be some "solid fact" presented to a jury, this product of surveillance becomes the inherent trust in technology to decide the morality of society and by extension eliminate the need for a jury to decide anything

this might sounds ridiculous to you from an american but surveillance that entirely invades the private individual destroys their freewill
bentham the founder of utilitarianism deviced a perfect prison the panopticon, it is the theoretical ultimate in terms of totalitarian, the emphasis on total

in reality a surveillance system that eliminates privacy is enough, it is even better if it is not physical, the idea that god is watching is enough for people to stop masturbating, a system that you know for a fact is watching you will make you do things you would do different otherwise

i am just going to call it tips (total invasion of privacy surveillance)

tips is not just some government tool or policing tool, it is actually adding another character to your psyche dictating your every move, eroding your individuality to conform to a situation that something is always judging your every action, but instead of a benevolent god, it is a faceless omnipresent jailer and the argument the system is flawed becomes moot since the system precisely does what it's suppose to

in the end is it meaningful, only if you believe in some semblance of free will, otherwise it makes no difference

Is this pasta? This sounds too fascinating a post to be original.

why are you so rude to me

I'm not being rude, it's a five star post imo, but posts with over 300 letters that aren't pasta are getting rarer and rarer so I don't know what to think.

i always like to say anonymity is the last bastion of free speech, I am not kidding
when you guys out yourselves as individuals with nametags and pointless pictures of your bodies it really is a very dangerous game because you have never appreciated what it means to not be bounded by something, to talk to random strangers about anything

but then you ruin it by trying to impose some recognizable feature of your personal reality and impose it on your only existence as a true equal of the multitude, it is so perverse that i think anonymity might be an entirely inhumane condition

>free will is a bad thing / free will does not exist
This is the exact basis of reasoning that corrupt and self-serving puppet masters the world over use to justify the world they'd build. It begins with "let's save the world from itself" and ends with "why should I listen to you, my machines are infallible and you are not." All the while, the master's inherent humanity, and thus imperfection, seemingly eludes him. It's madness.
Even if the system doesn't start out with a person/people bending it to its will, it's only a matter of time before some footage is doctored, little things are changed around to suit the needs of the powers that be, etc. You and I both know how easy it is to airbrush out a person, mix up some sentences in the name of fun. If whoever runs the judicial system believes that whatever comes out of the cameras is absolute truth, then all of a sudden the courtroom can be shown what amounts to a youtube poop, and innocents will be jailed over the jokes that some Orpheus or cs equivalent decided to make that day.
This idea that "technology is perfect, technology will save us" is a stupid meme that needs to die, and fast. We aren't in the 1890s anymore.

the technology meme is well founded it has lifted us to unimaginable heights

what is very dangerous is when it is used to supplant the metaphysical, our theoretical workings of ethics and our definitions of humanity (at least renaissance) comes from a vaporous cloud of not-real

however machines are very real, in the fundamental mechanism they make no mistake (at least when they work), our meta view of the universe accounts for a certain type of uncertainty, it is an evolutionary byproduct of understanding, reminds me of the athenian temple to the god with no name, in order to make sure we cover all our bases we impose upon our understanding from the ideas of a meta world

technology is impervious to the meta world, we may make philosophical guess to what they mean but ultimately they can only process reality and spit out reality, if we use it to do the same to our meta world we destroy that temple to the nameless god and replace it with not technology but a strange type of certainty, kind of like the vulcan fetish for logic

and in the star trek humans, us and writers and creators, literally cannot imagine a people with that kind of reality, every single vulcan character has a fatal vulcan flaw, they are either too emotional, their logic fails them or they weren't so logical in the first place and it's some kind of mask, that speaks more about us than theoretical vulcans

People are naturally authoritarian. In democracies, they only extol freedom because social norms dictate it. In truth, they see little value in abstractions such as rights and are more concerned with meeting their immediate needs. This is why only a minority of people are politically active. Even the people cheering for them from the bleachers are often doing it for the wrong reasons. When it comes to privacy, they think the issue is in the shame of someone seeing their body or their soul bare. The implication here is that they would not object to mass surveillance in a tolerant society. In any country, there is a generally held belief that those abused by authority deserve it. It is a very important notion because coercion alone cannot hold everything together and needs to be supplemented with popular consent. Policing everyone at all times is simply not economically feasible. In regards to mass surveillance, people believe they will be left alone if they do not draw attention to themselves. They see no problem with granting the government unchecked power because the possibility of abuse is too abstract and far-removed in their mind. This is a similar line of reasoning people living in dictatorships hear and repeat. They live their life believing freedom fighters are troublemakers who deserve what is coming for them and they will never be the regime's next target because they are good docile people. This authoritarian tendency is what keeps autocracies on their feet and democracies on their toes.

I am willing to let the government know I have a nun fetish for them to be able catch those frenchie-colombian isis members.

>People who are so vanilla and upstanding they don't have a single shameful fetish, ugly opinion, questionable search history, or illegal download?
They're fucking NORMIES

This though
The government has seen all the tranny and furry porn I fap to

it is because the modern notions of freedom comes from the ancient greek ideas about man, they all are capable of being god, emphasis on capable

we have build our institutions that our better selves are already here and that we collectively can just toss away our evolutionary forebears by literally thinking about how crude they were

This being an issue of underpaid bureaucrats giggling at people’s porn tastes is a popular normie argument.
People were always indifferent towards freedom, thinking keeping their head down is a better survival strategy than creating and maintaining a society where there is no need to keep their head down.

I agree with what you have said, up to the point where you advocate placing computers at the uppermost level of society. All systems suffer from the same imperfection as their creators, mankind - you yourself stated that a machine is only as good as its instruction. To give one particular system absolute authority over the affairs of man, to regard it as one would a god, is foolish, especially if there are no safety catches.
That computers lack the fundamental "meta world" of humanity is one argument against their rule, for this lack of uncertainty in the decision-making system will prohibit proper accounting for foreign ethics and morality. It will not serve us, but seek to manipulate to an end, as all men do. Assuming human-like intelligence, this manipulation will happen at a much more efficient rate than any man could hope to acheive, and the singleminded nature of this computer may well prove to be the downfall of modern society.

>in reality a surveillance system that eliminates privacy is enough, it is even better if it is not physical, the idea that god is watching is enough for people to stop masturbating, a system that you know for a fact is watching you will make you do things you would do different otherwise
Except it doesn't really work as whole human history shows

>tips is not just some government tool or policing tool, it is actually adding another character to your psyche dictating your every move, eroding your individuality to conform to a situation that something is always judging your every action, but instead of a benevolent god, it is a faceless omnipresent jailer and the argument the system is flawed becomes moot since the system precisely does what it's suppose to
And again people will still do dumb shit even if they know they are watched, just check youtube.