You must log in or register to comment.
One of the things I warn people about privacy is that it’s not about what they might find, it’s about what they might pretend to find.
Plenty of dirty cops plant evidence. Who’s to say they don’t like someone and keep a flash drive full of Cheese Pizza to plant on their computer. Usually that kind of logic gets people on board more easily.
Feels like out of all the amendements, the 4th is the most violated one in US history.
He misattributes that quote
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1558
You will find the quote in this book that predates Nazi Germany
Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends—people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.”
So the quote was about the American secret service?
Yes
Here’s a scientific dissertation on how and why that phrase sucks: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
It’s so easy to use but very hard to fights against. Worst case of bullshit.
ok ill be the one to say it then: the NSA are fascists. the NSA is evil.
My response to this is usually “Do you have curtains?”
Very late edit: I have found it very effective. It causes pause for thought because everyone values privacy, they just find it hard to picture themselves needing it. Curtains.
My response is similar, usually the good old ‘Do you shut the door when you shit?’.
When we start getting specific, I’ll often try and frame data harvesting in a much more visceral way. If they say they don’t care that xyz keeps track of everyone they talk to, I ask them to imagine an actual person standing behind them, making notes on a clipboard about every interaction they have with someone, and how that would make them feel.
Fuck me, the last part hit me HARD. I won’t get into the details why because it is painful for me to talk about it.
The nazi loved the “nothing to hide”. What better than all your information, like religion, nicely written down in official records if you want to suddenly round up one specific group of people. Or DEI wanting to deport a certain group, and DOGE doing their best to suck up all information on everybody. You may have nothing to fear right now, but you never know who’s going to be in office soon.
You may have nothing to fear right now, but you never know who’s going to be in office soon.
The way I always explain it to people - take any additional government power or access to information you either don’t care about or actively support. Now imagine whoever you oppose/hate the most taking office and trying to use that against your interests. Are you still OK with them having that power? Same principle applies regardless of what power or who’s pushing for it.
It’s like due process - you don’t want any category of alleged violation not to be subject to due process, and if you don’t understand why then it’s time to wrongfully accuse you of doing that so you understand the problem.
I still think DOGE is just feeding all that information to Palantir, and everything else is a pretext to that goal. They want an AI embedded directly into the government, making a large dependency on it, and bypassing checks and balances quickly has allowed that to happen.
Like those people that signed up for DNA sequencing for heritage research. Now that info is going to be sold. The problem is it could be used to discriminate for health insurance or other nefarious reasons
We desperately need a constitutional right to privacy, but I doubt that will happen in my or our country’s lifetime.
Which country? Plenty of countries have at least a nominal right to privacy, but it doesn’t end up meaning much when US companies own your country’s communications platforms.
I’ll let you guess, although you probably only need one guess.
“The early Internet’s dissociative opportunities actually encouraged me and those of my generation to change our most deeply held opinions, instead of just digging in and defending them when challenged. This ability to reinvent ourselves meant that we never had to close our minds by picking sides, or close ranks out of fear of doing irreparable harm to our reputations. Mistakes that were swiftly punished but swiftly rectified allowed both the community and the “offender” to move on. To me, and to many, this felt like freedom.” ~ Permanent Record, Snowden.
The answer to that Reddit post is to delete your account on Reddit.
I have “nothing to hide” but I STILL like privacy tyvm. Hence I’ll shit in public with the stall door closed, and not disclose my wank schedule on Facebook
Weird how Edward Snowden is basically a Boddhisatwa and Julian Assange
Weird how Edward Snowden is basically a Boddhisatwa and Julian Assange
Defining someone a Bodhisattva is complex. Snowden & Assange acted with potential benefit & harm. True Bodhisattvas act from pure compassion & wisdom, embodying equanimity. Their actions offer reflection on truth & consequences.
Where is the harm?
Exposing truth can often get people killed, especially if the liars are in the government, want to kill witnesses or rats, or at least make their lives hell for betraying the state. Depending on the severity, livelihoods are often at stake. That’s why very few people engage in whistleblowing. They’re aware that it will not get better for them.
Self harm then? I think it’s not only fine but also heroic.
Where is the harm?
Snowden’s disclosures, while aiming for transparency, risked national security, compromised sources, strained relations, & potentially enabled misuse of info. Buddhist principles emphasize avoiding harm & maintaining order, aspects potentially impacted by his actions. A balanced view acknowledges both benefit & risk.
Maintaining order in this context would mean letting some people harm other people’s privacy though.
Maintaining order in this context would mean letting some people harm other people’s privacy though.
You’re right to question “order” at the expense of privacy. Buddhist principles highlight interdependence & ethical action. Security shouldn’t erode fundamental rights. Privacy & security are interconnected, not opposing forces.
termights replies to you make me agree with your original statement. any harm was to things that are themselves overall harmful. Now that I look at it, it feels like between what we saw with snowden and schwartz it was 2013 when I really realized things are really really messed up.
Could you explain what you mean by that please?
Snowden is very zen and I don’t know what Assange but it’s not zen
Retaliation for exposing the truth, likely to never speak the full truth again.
What did she say after Snowden dropped that bomb?
We’ll be right back after these messages
I’m gonna guess a whole lot of flustered backpedaling amounting to not a lot of anything, but I’m willing to be surprised if someone wants to dig up the video.
I don’t think this image shows her being in a position to backpedal from. I see her providing him with a platform to counter some points that were made elsewhere; she has not necessarily taken a position one way or the other.
I meant backpedaling in the journalistic way of ‘Oh you seem to actually know more about what you’re talking about than I do and have a lot to say on the subject, I should, uh, redirect to a different topic where I can catch you out for that sick sound bite’ or whatever. Maybe that’s not what was going on in that interview, Iono, I haven’t seen it.
