RSS
Twitter
If You're Not Doing Something Wrong, You Still Have Something To Worry About
from the good-answer dept
We're still waiting for a good answer to the question we asked a few months ago for a Godwin's Law-like name for the assertion that in any discussion about expansions of government surveillance, the longer the discussion goes, the more likely it is that someone will say "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." While the concept still doesn't have a name, Bruce Schneier has written up a scathing rebuttal to anyone who utters the phrase, noting that privacy is not about hiding a "wrong," but about the basic human concept of liberty. In a world where your every movement is watched, it's always easy for the watchers to abuse that info, either by defining what's wrong (which can change rapidly), or simply by using that info to embarrass or blackmail a person -- even if the actions are perfectly legitimate. With that in mind, people act very differently under constant surveillance. They are not free to be themselves -- even if they're not doing anything "wrong." So, the answer to the question of what are you worried about is simple. It's the loss of basic human freedom and liberty.
Reader Comments (rss)
Summary of some points.
1:
"If you have nothing to hide then let everyone in the world read your mail and watch films of you and your wife"
*There have always been corrupt groups/governments or belief based 'gangs', allow violations of privacy and they gain the means to know everything you do:
"So your wife's black huh?...well, you're gonna pay me $300 a week or we'll hang her, our little secret"
Unless you thing that being black
(or any race, belief or opinion) in an offence punishable by death, it would be unwise to let anyone violate anyone elses privacy rights without 'steel-solid' reasons.
Even suspecting someone of murder is a suspect reason, you could simply LIE, then spy on an innocent person that was going to reveal important govt information that society needed to know about..."oh, they're deadly allergic to peanuts...*Govt leaves cooked meal on their doorstep with a 'thankyou' card*.
There you have it, it's perfectly alright to prevent crimes by teaching children/etc or by tracking down a suspect CSI style...you do not need to tap eveyones phone to find murderers, they will be the ones least likely to reveal such information over phones they know might be tapped.
2:
"If you don't like America (or ANYTHING else) leave it alone and go somewhere where in no-longer bothers you."
Usually it's a large group of people that doesn't like something, imagine America losing 45% of it's population because some people didn't like KKK members harassing them and everyone they cared about.
In the entire history of our fine America, we have always endeavoured to make it a better place, more free etc.
This statement innocuously suggests that we break that long lived tradition and become apathetic about anything- Weather it be Terrorism, Agism, Racism, or Read-my-private-letterism.
The original statement was basically giving an imperative opinion: Do this or this.
This is similar to saying: "Walk 2 steps then stop" to a stranger without any logical explaination and expecting them to treat you like a well adjusted adult.
"If something's broken...we're gonna kick it's ass, or fix it"
Privacy is broken at the moment,
(It could be worse and it could be better).
if we can decalre war on a noun (Terrorism), we can fix one as well...we're Americans, we can even declare war on "Spying", and from all that everyone has contributed to on this topic- we have good reason to.
3:
"If we reduce the right to privacy, we gain Security...and we MUST have security, *Traces any one of these posts back to your home address* Traitor! you don't believe in security, therefore you don't believe in America! therefore you don't believe in freedom...we don't need a court case to take scum like you away."
If it can be done by anyone, it can be done by ANYONE else. If the Govt taps the phone of one person, anyone at all, then they can and might tap yours.
Who is going to stop them?
Who is going to stop your neighbour exploiting the in-built govt backdoor into your private life? if the govt makes it compulsory for mobile phone manufacturers to include hardware that lets them record your calls...it'll be on Wikipedia:"My uncle works for the govt so here's a way to listen to anyone's phone conversations".
You might not fear the government, how about someone who asks his fellow criminal
"left the keys under the flowerpot eh? away on holiday? let's smoke this fat-cat (you)"
My examples and analogies may not be the best would, however it's clear that there is potential for abuse.
A gun has the potential to go off...and that's still a lot safer than taking away privacy rights
(I could give an example but use your imagination).
I have not been unbiased and make no apologies for coming across as pro human rights/freedom/privacy.
It's because I don't want the govt knowing that I collect stamps...if word got out my reputation as a bank-robber would be seriously marred...I'd get bank staff going "aren't you that sissy boy that collects stamps?!"
and I'd have to run out of there crying.
And there's nothing wrong with collecting stamps...it's my right as an Americ...don't look at me that way...
you don't know me!
:-)
Are There there are a few more point's?
Add Your Comment