So is there actually any valid argument against " if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear...

so is there actually any valid argument against " if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?" or are people just mad about government oppression and don't want others to know about the trap porn on their pc

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo
collective-evolution.com/2015/05/15/us-intelligence-officer-every-single-terrorist-attack-in-us-was-a-false-flag-attack/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why don't you want people to find your trap porn though?

Maybe because they could blackmail/extort you if they did?

Saying you don't believe in privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't believe in free speech because you have nothing to say.

Also, the saying about having nothing to hide means you have nothing to fear came from Joseph Gobbels.

Majority of people commit small crimes

You can't begin to comprehend how many laws you can be convicted of

Armed with complete information, a corrupt entity could eliminate all dissidents legally

Even if it is used for the greater good. All the tools would be there for that system to be used for evil purposes. How can you be 100% sure nobody will flip that switch?

Stop wearing clothing when people come over to your house, start livestreaming yourself every time you take a shit, and post every SMS/chat convo you have on your public facebook wall. Hey nothing to fear if you've not got anything to hide, right?

Here's a 27 minute investment in time you better make, and fast.

youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

you can't compare privacy and freedom of speech. two different things

the difference is the government doesn't care how or where or when u take a shit. but in the case of online hey don't care if your searching up trap porn. it's not like they would start posting it on the news.

This. Here's an example:

I am the government. I dislike person A because they are a dissident. I have complete access to all communications. Using this knowledge, I find out what websites he visits. I then seed the forums on that site with a .jpeg that has child porn hidden in it and wait. Since I'm monitoring all comms, I get a notification the second he accidentally clicks it. I then have a casus belli to gulag him for 15+ years, and the public will cheer me for doing it. All this because I did not have to demonstrate any type of probable cause before searching his computer.

You are now aware Sup Forums is seeded in such a manner and the US can (and will) come after you if it so chooses, even if you're a foreign national, unless you live in another superpower (such as Russia or China)...but they're equally likely to gulag you too anyway.

B-but immunity cat will protect me, right?

I don't even use computers or the internet at all, I'm off the grid

Yes..
>my argument is freedumz...
>no man shall tread on my freedumz

Go tell that to Hillary

everybody has something to hide, most of it just isn't criminal

I wouldn't want some NSA guy to know what my dick or my gf's tits look like, for example, and if possible I would like to maintain a certain level of privacy concerning my genitalia

I don't want anyone to know about my trap porn either

Because if the Government has your information they can control you.
They can also discriminate people based on their online actions.
For example, you could get executed because OP is a fag.

Mate, we have GCHQ. (government communication headquarters) It's the British NSA. They catch every text message, email, internet history.
It's Orwellian levels of spying.

I don't give a fuck. If the cunts want to trawl through my mature BBW milf porn searches or jokey emails I send to my girlfriend, or messages to my daughter wishing her good luck in exams or whatever, then let them read it.
That must be a boring job. My gf is police and she can type in a number plate of a vehicle into the computer thing she has in the police car.
It will bring up driver information, insurance, vehicle tax, any shit like parking fines or speeding tickets.

I asked her about this and she said that she only uses it if someone is driving dangerously or they are looking for someone.
We are watched. Yet the fucking authorities can't (or won't) prevent terrorist attacks. That shit that happened in France. Reading about that bataclan massacre shook me up. I'm ex Royal Engineers (British Army) and I know what boms can do in a busy place.

Snowden is a top lad.

*bombs
stupid keyboard

Tell it to Anthony Wiener.

"If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search"

Why should the government have the right to search people anyways when nobody else does? The answer is stuff like gathering evidence for crimes, catching smugglers at the border, trying to catch agents like spies, and generally trying to maintain security, law, and order.

Somebody with powers to search you could abuse information they found that was, while not nessecarily illegal, could be used to blackmail you such as an affair. Giving governments full control to check everybody is negligent, it would give an autocrat too much power, there needs to be a series of checks and balances and people have to resist tearing these checks and balances down. They are not to be torn down as a mere convience.

One of these checks and balances is the government having to get a warrant before searching, and having to go through a judge.

Generally speaking, I'll refuse a search in any non-emergency situation, even if I have nothing to hide, simply because I don't want the government to search me every timei except the time I have something I'm nervous about them finding out about. Not even nessecarily anything illegal, maybe I just have a giant assvibrator in the back seat of my car and the cop wnats to search it, and the cop knows my friends.

This sort of power is really easy to abuse and not just by governments but also other people who can have access to your information like hackers.
So if you don't want people to have the ability to easily ruin your life, you should be against this.

>so is there actually any valid argument against " if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?"

Ask Hillary Clinton. Or maybe her doctor.

Like guys, realize, why do we search people? It's because we think they're criminals, smugglers, drug users, deviants.

Why trust the government to search you and go through all your private things, when they don't trust that you aren't some criminal lying to their face? Why is it reasonable for you to give the government your complete trust, governments having a history of using such information to maintain corrupt control of countries, but for the government give you none?

This is, however, something you need to be flexible with. In an emergency situation, cornering the dorner, wartime, expectations of privacy should be lower.

What is legal today can be illegal tomorrow, what is harmless can still be considered illegal, and not every law is just.

We have everything to hide. A corrupt government looking to smack someone down can simply create a new law or twist an old law.

Also, a lot of law enforcement, law-makers, and nosy fucks with a finger on speeddial to the police are fucking retarded.

There are literally kids and teens in prison for making jokes and talking shit.

Why do people have curtains on their windows? They must have something to hide.

Everyone is entitled to privacy. If the "you have nothing to fear if nothing to hide" mentality will eventually lead to government cameras in every room in every home. The slack acceptance of government spying will eventually lead to this. And if you have a problem they clearly you're a criminal therefore guilty.

Slippery slopes are real.

If you have nothing to hide would you tell your bank details and pin number to a cop?

That is how a metaphor works, dipshit, you point out the stuff in common with two different things.

>it's not like they would start posting it on the news.
As long as you do what you are told and don't even try to run for office.

hello australia.
I'm glad you're doing well.

That is a false argument. We all have a right to a private life irrespective of whether we have something to hide or not. Being a goverment is irrelivant. It's just a group of people who have bullying rights. You won't accept a creep looking through your window, why would you let the goverment do the same? If they have a legitimate reason to suspect something they can go through the proper channels and get a judge approved warrent, not go fishing like a creep at the window.

>any valid argument
Yes, it's called get a warrant you fat fuck.

do you have curtains in your house?

everyone has something to fear. The number of laws there are is beyond the ability of even our own government to keep track of, so the potential for fucking anyone you like legally is quite high, if you have the data.

>inb4 some faggot claims he has never broken a single law

youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo

>thread full of intelligent thoughtful responses from the western world
I like where this is going lads keep it up. Has Trump changed his position on metadata collection?

The thing I don't understand is, can't the government just say "we monitor everything" and "he downloaded cp" even if they don't monitor anything and he's never downloaded cp?

They could just say "Yeah here's a log file that shows he downloaded cp. He doesn't have the files on his pc, so he must've deleted them." And the log file could be completely fake. Or they could say it's "classified" and never present evidence.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like they can just make shit up and throw people in prison without doing any monitoring whatsoever.

They can. What would otherwise be considered hearsay can be admitted as actual evidence if the person is an officer of the law, or a government agent.

They say the "slippery slope" shit is a fallacy, but it's not. What is acceptable today might not be acceptable tomorrow, and you'll get fucked for it.

>Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

If you believe this you can go ahead and ask yourself why you didn't hear about the government spying on you earlier.

Pro-Tip: It was because they had something to fear.

>What would otherwise be considered hearsay >can be admitted as actual evidence if the person is an officer of the law, or a government agent

Sure bout that? i have heard otherwise from a Law professor

Sure.
I have nothing to hide but I do have something to fear.
I fear that an organization run by individuals who consistently show that they have contempt for me, my rights, and human life in general, individuals who can consistently be shown to fail in their duty to represent the people in favor of corrupt behavior, corporate cronyism, warmongering, and other immoral behaviors, is demanding that it be given further power even though it has shown that it cannot be responsible with said power. Every inch of rope we give to our government is another inch they will use to hang us with when given the first opportunity to do so. I on the other hand wish that they be stripped of as much power as possible without compromising their ability to run a function country and so I advocate for individuals who vote to continue to vote against giving these people more power.

Power corrupts, I don't want to cede more power to the government.

People that handle evidence get caught doing this all the time, the disincentive in theroy is anybody caught doing it will have ALL their previous cases thrown into question, so cheating may not be worth the consequences.

great fucking video mate

Well it is against our 14th amendment. So doing such a thing is unconstitutional. So the entire NSA and TSA is unconstitutional.

>Reasons I have something to fear even if I have nothing to hide:
- The level of power to parse, catalog, infer peoples beliefs and actions on such a scale has not existed in the history of humanity. A god is born, we trust from now it will always be benevolent.
- If you are in favour or Trump, imagine Hillary and her new world of policies in charge of such a system. If you support Hillary, imagine Trump.
- Leaks, misuse of such systems will happen. Government is not immune to corruption, being hijacked by other agenda's and interest groups
- Lack of transparency. What we see "above the water line" with miscarriages of justice, stupid decisions, bad outcomes, at the very worst, happens to an equal level below the the water line where we can't see it.
- Automation of decisions in massive information systems. Insurance companies already do it, banks do it. Computer says no. No one can change it. You now have computer systems deciding what lists you are on, how much of a threat you are, how much of a hell the government should make your life etc. Yes, it's computer systems, speech recognition, text parsing, data mining that is doing the surveillance, there are not enough people in the world to monitor the huge amounts of data being collected
- Hate speech laws (people convicted even for posting in non-public Facebook forums, restricting posts to just their friends), copyright on mere decryption keys etc are all for our own good. It could be a crime for me to post pic related.
- All the above captures the concerns really, but to paraphrase and discuss - who decides what is right and wrong for you to do? Look back at McCarthyism, fear of the commies, Russians (sorry to just choose right-winged hysteria's, there have been Leftist ones too), what kind of rules would they make, lists, what conclusions would they come to if they saw everything you were saying or reading?

if you got nothing to hide post a full naked photo and your name so I can show everyone you know that you have a small cock

Great post, I'm sure there are many others in this thread but I'm reading from the bottom up

Enforcement agencies tamper with and contrive evidence regularly. One instance that comes to mind is with DNA.
An appeals lawyer noticed some very faint bands in the DNA test on victims blood that was found on the guilty parties clothing. It was like a ghost of someone else's DNA, barely visible unless you looked closely. That DNA ghost ended up belonging to a blood donor, the victim had been given a transfusion. So the blood found on accused's clothes was put there after the victim had received the transfucion. This "Infallible" DNA evidence convicted him.

Its all rainbow and sunshine until we live in a dystopian future where our entire computer usage is in a corporate dossier.

Immunity cat is always with you user

Great post brah. I knew you aussies could do something besides shitposting.

Thanks mate.
We return you to to our scheduled programming

That's the point. how else would you rule a country? They have to cheat in order to stay on top, it's even expected of them.

Innocent until proven guilty should work.

Everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, but you still close the door.

Yes there is: surveillance has proven absolutely ineffective at contrasting terrorists, therefore there really is no reason why we should use it. Unless you openly admit you want a surveillance State, but of course nobody does that - surveillance keeps being sold as a weapon against terror while its only usefulness is spying on citizens

If you have nothing to hide, why does the government mandate that they must look?

You're treating me like a guilty person when I clearly am not.

You're only half right. It helps them shut down any enemies to the state, and sometimes brands them unjustfully as terrorists.

Because they're shit-scared of you. You are the reason they earn money, you're the one who takes care of their kids. You are the one who makes sure they have a home to return to. If you wanted to, you'd be able to take them down in an afternoon. They have to abuse things like this in order to keep you under some basic levels of controll.

I don't know mate. The argument goes a bit like this: "if you have nothing to say, then don't speak".
I probably fucked it up as huge hangover. My brain is wrecked.
I woke up with a woman that I don't know. I just made toast and a some tea, and pretended everything is normal.

Snowden is a good lad.

Assume your government finds out that you've been fapping to your boss's daughter/CP/other weird shit.

Some guy hacks your government and unloads all this info onto the internet. The profile your government builds up on you is thus leaked onto the internet; surfing habits, work behavior, leisure activities, social life etc

So therefore, the chance will drastically increase that someone who knows you and/or your boss will be able to blackmail you with the information your government has built up and lost

This extends to other innocuous information like passwords, billing info, telephone and housing addresses or even social media groups. Any of these info can be sold or used to exploit you regardless of whether the exploiter knows you or not

Let's say one day you want to apply for a professional license.

To get said license you have to go before the State Board of X Profession and prove you have "good moral character."

Imagine if that Board could look at your entire internet browsing history as well as watch every place you went everyday via Persistent Surveillance.

>Snowden
He's a dead lad
F

The government could easily dissiminate embarassing but not illegal information to punish dissidents. Or just threaten to do so. Additionally, they could make life hell for someone they knew was using Bad Speech online. One day you're fired for no reason. Your tax filing got lost in the system and they blame you, and you get to start over. Your credit rating drops.

Finally, yes, privacy is important in and of itself

You have a human right to privacy no matter how much they say if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Never trust the authorities they will always try to undermine your rights and never acknowledge them unless reminded after their PC rhetoric.

>so is there actually any valid argument against " if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?
It does not applies to anyone. Governments and rich hide plenty.
>if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?
Really makes you think about government and rich wrongdoings...

>Yes there is: surveillance has proven absolutely ineffective at contrasting terrorists
How so? Since 1999 there was no terrorist acts in USA that are not false flag operations. Real terrorist BTFO.
collective-evolution.com/2015/05/15/us-intelligence-officer-every-single-terrorist-attack-in-us-was-a-false-flag-attack/

Will the CIA kill him?
I had a kek when saw a vid of the head of MI6 saying that they don't assassinate people.

Aye. Right. Totally beliveable.

>aussi shitposter
>brobably bait
anyway freedom means the right to own private porperties and so privacy

>believing human rights are tangible

I have no idea why people don't like the phrase "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"

Once people's personal sense of shame used to keep their actions in check. We have lost that now. Just look at movies like (((Sausage Party))) where a fictional 11 minute long orgy is as acceptable to us today as Lawrence of Arabia was to our elders.

Liberals don't like it because they are like children. They don't like being told they're not allowed to do something. To the liberal consequences are only things that effect other people.

Fuck the 21st century.

>>unconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutionalunconstitutional