What's the best rebuttal to someone telling you privacy doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide?
>>52190648
I wouldn't know. I've got tons of things to hide.
I want to be able to make mistakes and be a general failure in private, and still have the façade of being a functional member of society in front of the people I care about. I don't want all the things I do to be recorded forever because most of what I do is stupid.
I guess you could make the argument that what's legal and acceptable now won't always be legal or acceptable. During the second world war, for example, left-wing communist-type people were the good guys, they went against hitler's policies, but during the cold war, people with the same alignment were put in jail because the communists were suddenly the bad guys. If everything is recorded and stored, it will be used against you in the future.
>>52190648
"OK, give me your phone right now."
>>52190742
Not really comparable, you can have stuff you're not too bothered about authorities knowing (like porn) but uncomfortable with friends and family knowing
why do you care so much about how other people handle their privacy? does it affect you in any way?
>>52191616
but this is the comparison.. nsa knows which people are dear to you and if you make trouble on the state because you are politically engaging, you do an aaron swartz easily
>>52190648
Every normal person has something to hide.
Be it credit card numbers or naughty pictures or something else.
so... why don't you leave your house's door open? you don't have anything to hide right?
>>52190648
"That's like saying that free speech doesn't matter because you have nothing to say"
>>52190648
Everyone has a lot to hide, like credit card numbers and shit like that.
>>52190648
Enjoy your botnet.
>>52191888
Trips for truth. Tell them to start with removing all bathroom stalls and doors in the country.
>>52190712
super fucking underrated post.
i'm gonna use the ww2/cold war example from now on
That argument comes from Nazi Germany
What if anne frank was hiding on my HD
>>52190648
"So, do you have curtains/blinds on your windows?"
>>52190648
The more places your data is stored, the more vulnerable it is.
Government databases and other databases get haxx0red all the time and then all your details are on the black market for identity theft.
>>52191888
>>52192333
Trips of truth
give me your phone then
let me comb through your emails, drives, and facebook messages
i won't look at any of your passwords, credit cards, bank shit, etc. just let me look at everything else you do.
oh, you don't want me to know about that stuff?
then why is it okay for the government to know about it?
you don't think the government is capable of going full 1984 or USSR?
>>52191904
/thread with snowden quote
>>52190648
You want to see my dick?
>>52190648
"Take your pants off and bend over."
>>52191904
Or saying freedom of movement doesn't matter because your never leave your basement anyway...
>>52190648
"People who have nothing to hide aren't very interesting people at all"
Then walk away, OP
>tfw the terrorists have already won not that western civil rights are dead
>do you lock door?
>do you have curtains?
>>52190648
Ask them for their phone and passcode.
When they say no, tell them they have something to hide.
When they say it's different "begause ids da gubbahment geebing me save xDDD" ask them who works for the government.
Most of the fucks at the NSA are living /g/'s dream life; saving nudes and fucking around.
>>52192411
Came here to say this. Also, data could be intercepted as it's being transmitted to those databases.
>>52190648
What's wrong with hiding things, anyway?
>>52193036
Anytime someone mentions they trust the government, remind them of the quality of DMV service.
I would disagree and instead say 'privacy doesn't matter if you don't care about the Nsa or Fbi being up your asshole'. Like how most normal people feel.
>>52190648
>if you have nothing to hide?
Everyone has shit they'd like to hide, both from some people and from everyone. That's not super-shady spy shit, that's just part of being in a society.
Without privacy, we can't talk freely, we can't be trusted by others, we can't fail safely, we can't protect ourselves, and we can't take risks.
>>52190648
"ok, without cheating, let me use your computer right now and see all your browser history and files in your computer, i'll call a psychologist friend with certification to make an analysis and make a profile about you, the this analysis will be shared with you employer, friends, relatives and social networks to see what people think about it"
>>52193575
I think the reason these retards don't care if the NSA knows about all their dirty laundry is they picture it as just a building, somewhere in DC in a row of other buildings for alphabet soup organizations. They don't realize people, that are human and prone to misusing information, work there and can see the data.
It's the same reason people don't care about genocides in faraway places but will mass protest the death of a criminal at the hands of the cops. If you can't see it with your own eyes, happening to a person that you strongly identify with, you don't give a shit. The problem with that in this case is by the time people start seeing their neighbors abducted in the night over their computer history we've already slipped too far for them to do anything about it. The whole "for evil to succeed, all that's necessary is for good people to say nothing" thing pretty much.
>>52191798
>>52191888
>>52191923
>>52192905
>>52192452
>>52190742
These are strawmans, because not letting other people know about your strange fetishes or whatever isn't the same as not letting the government know about it. We don't want other people know about our secrets because we are afraid of being judged, embarrassed or shamed, but none of that is relevant when we are talking about the NSA logging our shit automatically in some huge database.
>>52193749
How is the government not included in "other people"?
Do you think it's run by robots or something?
>>52190648
"Okay, now imagine that Trump (or comparably disliked politician) wins the presidency, and he now has control over the NSA."
>>52193749
>These are strawmans
No, they're not. Is the government/NSA not made up of people? Just because they don't know you doesn't mean they can't fuck with you or that you should be ok with them knowing all your secrets.
Following your logic, go drive to a city several hours away where nobody knows you and start yelling all the bad things you've done from a streetcorner.
Nobody there knows you or cares about you personally, so whats the harm?
>>52193777
I don't know if Trump has said for sure either way, but I doubt he's for the NSA program. I'm sure he realized what a breach of privacy means.
Pretty much everybody else running except for Cruz and Rand wants to either keep it or expand it in the name of national security.
This isn't facebook. Bashing Trump for no reason won't get you and likes.
>>52193822
It's not about bashing Trump. It's about emphasizing the fact that someone you absolutely distrust could get into office and abuse the shit out of the program.
>>52193822
pretty sure based Jill Stein is against it
>>52193850
Ah, I get you now senpai.
>>52193853
>meme no-support candidates
Although I guess you could probably put Randlet in that category by now too.
"Show me an honest man and I will find a reason to hang him." - Some Spansh Inquisitor
The problem isn't them finding you from your data, it's once you've been targeted they will dig up something with which to condemn you. Everyone brakes the law in some manner almost everyday. Do you really want the government retroactively ticketing you for every time you Jay walked? How about fines for every under the table cash transaction you've ever made but didn't declare? How about anytime you've said something that the Twiiter/Tumblerverse would crucify you for and get you fired? People generally can't think of all the ways they can be maligned because they think of themselves as good, law abiding people.
>>52190648
>Why do you wear clothes, then?
>Tell me your credit card number, social security number, address, medical information, etc.
"I got nothing to hide but I have to protect my 2TB nude pictures and sex videos of my. 9yo daughter."
>>52193749
>These are strawmans, because not letting other people know about your strange fetishes or whatever isn't the same as not letting the government know about it.
>logging our shit automatically in some huge database
I beg to disagree, for this logic to work we would need a guarantee that the government and the NSA or other agencies are not run by humans and that there's definitely not human intervention on how they work and that no human can access that data in any way, on top of that all the info is one query away from any person that works for the government with access to that database, even better, with that database they can analyze automatically the data to find any piece of information they find convenient, let's say just for example, people that commented about the death of Ian murdock on 4chan the day he died and that lives near from where he lived.
>>52193749
They're not strawmans, especially if the government tries to destroy your character in court.
>>52193977
Wasn't part of the Snowden leaks about how NSA personnel were using the system to look up people they wanted to bang or get even with?
It annoys me how fucking stupid people are. And when you say you'd like to have your basic rights respected you're a tinfoiler. Reeeee etc.
>>52190648
There's no rebuttal. You can't argue logic and reason with a turnip.
>>52190648
You can't. It's an unbeatable gambit. He sacrifices his "privacy" but gains the moral high ground.
>>52193930
>>Why do you wear clothes, then?
>Because it's fucking winter, cunt
>>52193749
This might shock you, but:
1. NSA is made of people.
2. OP didn't mention NSA, just privacy in general. Which means it can be any person or company, including Microsoft.
3. Companies get hacked and the user data gets exposed. It happens all the time.
>>52190648
>pic related
Just ask them why they don't just take a shit in the middle of the street? They don't have anything to hide, right?
>>52194412
Using shit (lel) arguments is counterproductive you retard.
That toilet is surrounded by one-way mirrors. He can see out but they can't see in.
>nothing to hide
So you never were speeding or violated some parking rule and got away with it?
>>52194442
I know, but couldn't find a pic where someone is literally taking a shit on the streets (not Indian style).
>>52194265
This one is a big argument, what is more valuable? keeping your privacy under your control or be able to say that you're the guy who "has nothing to hide"?, IMO fuck the latter one
An outspoken activist against government injustice has an extramarital affair. The government spies on him and uses that information to try to shut him up.
That's not a hypothetical scenario, it's what happened to Martin Luther King, Jr. Everyone has something to hide.
>>52194534
Details? This will be a useful example to bring up.
>>52194567
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/martin-luther-king-fbi_n_4631112.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/martin-luther-king-cheated-his-wife-other-lesser-known-facts-about-civil-rights-leader-mlk-day
>>52194366
>I'm not one of those tinfoils who thinks that the winter is cold :^)
>>52194412
>Just ask them why they don't just take a shit in the middle of the street? They don't have anything to hide, right?
So what if you're talking with Pajeet? He already shits in the middle of the street on a daily basis.
>>52190648
You do have something to hide. There are 27000 pages of laws. You simply don't know which one you violated.
>>52193768
>>52193789
>>52193977
>>52194074
1) They are strawmen because many people would be okay with some agency spying on them if it meant their safety increased (e.g. from muh terrorism), but wouldn't be okay with something like giving you their phone, because no matter how much you try to blur the lines between the two things, there is a difference. And because of this difference, you are never going to convince a pro-NSA person by asking them to show you their email or pointing out that they have curtains installed in their home. And posting arguments that are useless in practice is just circlejerking.
2) The NSA might be made up of people, but they don't have personnel reading through your mail because of the sheer volume of the data. Maybe only if you are classified as a threat or something, but that's how law enforcement works anyway. And one could argue that privacy violations by NSA employees could be prevented if there was a body responsible for overseeing the surveillance program and punishing people who abuse the system for their own purposes, like snooping on their love interests.
3) I was addressing arguments like "hurr you have curtains, don't you :^)", that said nothing about how such a system can be abused if the wrong people get into power, or by malicious employees, or how you can never be sure that your data is secure and therefore collecting data on such a large scale is irresponsible. Those are all valid arguments in my opinion.
>>52194398
NSA was just an example I chose.
Just to make it clear, I don't support the NSA or online surveillance.
>>52194745
>if it meant their safety increased (e.g. from muh terrorism)
If only that were true, their arguments would have some weight. If they couldn't stop the San Bernadino faggots when they were openly talking about it on facebook they're not gonna stop shit.
>>52190648
>>52194892
Even that won't work on these retards.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/16/yale-fail-ivy-leaguers-caught-on-video-clamoring-to-kill-first-amendment.html
>inb4 hurr durr faux news
>>52194863
Just because it doesn't work well enough yet doesn't mean it never will.
>>52194745
>because no matter how much you try to blur the lines between the two things, there is a difference
Would you mind to explain the difference with your own words because imo is not only as bad but potentially even worse because unlike you and me the government has resources and the authority to prosecute any person they want for any reason, and as i said in my post, all that info is one query away from any of those people.
>you are never going to convince a pro-NSA person by asking them to show you their email or pointing out that they have curtains installed in their home
That's precisely because we're pointing it, because they can just trust blindly in an random person for the sole reason that is an authority. We're trying to say that they're is abusing their power, that's the point.
>but they don't have personnel reading through your mail because of the sheer volume of the data
When someone posts this king of argument is seriously think that this person doesn't knows why the databases were invented in the first place, the purpose of a database is solely to store information? why would you store information if no one will be able to read that "the sheer volume of the data"? see your contradiction? A database system is precisely created to be able to analyze and query easily huge amounts of information for a person to be able to get relevant quickly, the definition of "relevant" depends on each person criteria.
>that's how law enforcement works anyway
And you don't even dare to question why it must work that way?
>And one could argue that privacy violations by NSA employees could be prevented if
It's much more practical to not give information that is supposed to be private in the first place, that way you don't even need to worry how those people will handle that data because they don't have it in the first place.
>>52190648
You have them strip naked and walk around the mall
>>52190648
I guess you don't need freedom of speech either because you don't have anything important to say
>>52195119
>>52195300
>Thinking these are reasonable arguments to compare them to computer privacy
Just face the truth, a lot of /g/entlemen want privacy because they have super illegal 3-D loli pictures/videos on their computer that will get them v& as soon as the government finds out. That's why they care so much about privacy.
Of course you have "something" to hide, you just don't know it. It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't sensible information, they (as in the government, big brother, the man, etc.) are always looking for "something", everything depends on the agenda that is being pushed.
It used to be about fighting terrorism, but lately it seems to me they are expanding to fighting "politically incorrect" ideas. Either way, privacy it's one of the most important human liberties, it must be respected and defended at all cost.
>>52195330
I just don't want to be ostracized or imprisoned for my political views or anything I may organize.
>>52195330
nice ad hominem, 2/10 (i feel generous today)
>>52195105
>Would you mind to explain the difference with your own words
>It's much more practical to not give information that is supposed to be private in the first place
The difference is that one gains nothing from letting some random person look through their shit, but one can gain security from a (properly working) surveillance system.
>When someone posts this king of argument I seriously think that this person doesn't knows why the databases were invented in the first place
>And you don't even dare to question why it must work that way?
What I meant is that they don't have people reading through everything they collect, ideally they' only check it once a threat is detected.
When I said that's how law enforcement works anyway, I meant that it's kinda like how the police gets a search warrant if there is enough evidence to justify searching someone's house. To have a working justice system, law enforcement officers sometimes need to be allowed to infringe on some of people's rights to a reasonable degree, what would we have otherwise? Mob justice? Serial killers burying dead bodies in their garden running around freely, because the police isn't allowed to dig them up?
Of course I'm not saying that we should implement a surveillance system, just that the fact, that at one point you might be mistakenly flagged by the system, and your shit would be analyzed by a real person, is not enough justification for not implementing such a system.
>That's precisely because we're pointing it
The difference between the two situations is far too big imo.
>>52193749
Oh wow, the third part about faggots is a great argument, especially for the normalfag "homos dindu nuffin" mindset.
>>52194442
There's no such thing as a one-way mirror.
>>52194442
Unless the interior is brighter than the exterior, then he couldn't see out and they could see in
>>52195330
If encryption has a backdoor then anyone can gain access through it, it's only a matter of time, much less time than any brute force attempt
>>52195586
>The difference is that one gains nothing from letting some random person look through their shit, but one can gain security from a (properly working) surveillance system.
You're missing part of the point again, that argument does not point to saying that in both situation you gain somethig or even the same, the point of the argument is that you are risking too much in both cases. I think the key part of your post is "properly working", the point is that concentrate too much power into an small amount of individuals which already has a lot of power is dangerous and it's potential benefits heavily outweighs it's potential benefits imo. The government is running by humans and humans are not perfect or incorruptible, trust so blindly in a group of people is a bad idea because you potentially give them too much leeway for abusing anyone (it has already happened in the past).
>ideally they' only check it once a threat is detected
The word here is ideally, i know that you have a lot of faith in that people but, as i said, giving too much power to an small group of individuals is dangerous, it's better to not give that kind of information in the first place.
>how the police gets a search warrant if there is enough evidence to justify searching someone's house
That would be the ideal situation but since the authorities abusing their power is a thing the best is to at least protect your information, is your right if you want after all.
>To have a working justice system, law enforcement officers sometimes need to be allowed to infringe on some of people's rights to a reasonable degree
However that's why there exists the Presumption of innocence, otherwise anyone could just be framed without trial.
>what would we have otherwise? Mob justice? Serial killers burying dead bodies in their garden running around freely, because the police isn't allowed to dig them up?
This is a Reductio ad absurdum and a false dichotonomy.
>>52190648
Don't say anything, just slide your hands in his pockets and grab whatever you can find.
Study your findings and interrogate him about them.
When he resists, say that this is a matter of national security.
>>52196062
cont.
>what would we have otherwise? Mob justice? Serial killers burying dead bodies in their garden running around freely, because the police isn't allowed to dig them up?
As i said, not giving your private info to the government will not necessarily imply that delinquents will be able to do whatever they want, there's sane security measures that doesn't involves massive surveillance, so our options are not giving up our right to privacy or allowing delinquents to do whatever they want.
>and your shit would be analyzed by a real person, is not enough justification for not implementing such a system.
Could you give more details about why you think this?
>The difference between the two situations is far too big imo.
imo is not, information is power and anyone with your information will have a similar amount of power over your life, the government is even more dangerous than a random individual imo.
>>52191616
it's absolutely comparable. in a scenario where someone can see your data, you have to assume that ANYONE could. you don't have control over it. what if your friend/family member is some type of LE who has been given the power to access this information without a warrant? or what if hackers steal that information and release it to the public?
it's not really "privacy" if ANY party don't have to respect it
>>52191616
>Not really comparable, you can have stuff you're not too bothered about authorities knowing (like porn)
Invalid. Authorities are not perfect, benevolent gods looking out for your best interest in a flawless manner:
>data authorities have can leak/get stolen and fall into malicious hands
>security is never perfect, even for the authorities
>>52190648
>"If you have nothing to hide then let me go through your phone right now."
They will say no literally every time.
>>52190648
"The right to privacy" is really just another way of saying "freedom of thought." It's the ability to learn new information, form opinions, and discuss them with those that you know without the fear of persecution. Remember that the thought police in 1984 operated by invading your privacy, not by somehow reading your mind.
Saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is equivalent to saying you don't need freedom of thought because you have nothing to think.
>>52196062
>>52196213
1/2
>This is a Reductio ad absurdum and a false dichotonomy.
No, a world without search warrants would be absurd as fuck, that was the point, that police needs to have the right to infringe on your right to privacy IF there is enough evidence to warrant it.
>As i said, not giving your private info to the government will not necessarily imply that delinquents will be able to do whatever they want
I was only talking about search warrants and such, and not surveillance.
>Could you give more details about why you think this?
We already have people working for the government that have as much power over you as a hypothetical NSA employee who is authorized to handle situations where a person is flagged for suspected criminal activity. Policemen for example. Of course police is necessary, while surveillance is not, but the point is that we still don't have chaos because they don't abuse their power that often (and when they do, they only kill niggers most of the time lol).
>>52196986
2/2
>You're missing part of the point again [...]
>The word here is ideally [...]
Look bro I don't want the NSA spying on people, deliberately weakening encryption, developing all sorts of hacking tools, making companies hand over data to them without the public knowing about it, shutting down companies that don't comply (I think that's what happened to lavabit). I don't say that what they are doing is safe, and I don't think that mass surveillance can be done safely at all.
All I'm saying is that one can think that it is possible to have safe mass surveillance, and 999 times out of 1000 you're not gonna convince them by these >gimme ur phone then :^) arguments. Yeah, some rogue employee working for NSA *might* look at your shit, but it has a very small chance, you'd be one out of at least millions of people, but if I give you my phone then there is a 100% chance that you will look at my shit, and I don't even gain a little bit of security from it.
>>52190648
tell them that your other friends work at nsa and told you everything about his fetishes and he now have nothing to hide
>>52196986
>No, a world without search warrants would be absurd as fuck
Except this is not what i said, please read again what i posted: there's sane security measures that doesn't involves massive surveillance. Also, i didn't said that your post is absurd, Reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallcy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
You implied that the consequence of protecting your private data is:
>what would we have otherwise? Mob justice? Serial killers burying dead bodies in their garden running around freely, because the police isn't allowed to dig them up?
Those are not our only options and one is not directly related to another.
>that police needs to have the right to infringe on your right to privacy IF there is enough evidence to warrant it.
No one said otherwise, but that is not what we're discussing, what we're discussing is when the government implements massive survelliance, in short, when the condition you mentioned after the word "IF" is not met.
>I was only talking about search warrants and such, and not surveillance.
ok
>but the point is that we still don't have chaos because they don't abuse their power that often
And that's precisely why i said that giving too much power to an small number of people is dangerous, also they cannot abuse a power that people didn't gave them in the first place, as i said, the risks of giving them that power outweighs the benefits by a lot imo.
>(and when they do, they only kill niggers most of the time lol).
not funny bro
>you're not gonna convince them by these gimme ur phone then :^) arguments.
That is your point? the important part about this is not how much people can be convinced by that analogy, i think you should be worrying about the problem itself, if you think that analogy is bad think about another one which you think is more convincing.
>>52193749
I don't pay money for a safe so others can see whats inside. Same for computers.
>>52190648
Let me watch you pee.
>>52193749
If it results in fags and niggers being killed, I would gladly support the government increasing surveillance.
>>52190712
Good point sir
>>52197415
>not funny bro
Are you """""person of color"""" (cuz then sorry), or is it your first day on the 4chinz? Nigger jokes, holocaust jokes (or should I say holohoax lol), school shooting jokes, ISIS jokes, recent tragedy jokes are all funny as fuck imo. This >>52197510 anon gets it.
>think about another one which you think is more convincing
I don't think we need analogies, we just need to make people realize that even if they are good, honest people, the people in power tomorrow may have a different idea of what a good person is, and even if they support surveillance, they should know that the NSA needs to be more transparent about what it does.
>>52193930
I don't even have a credit card, I never used my social security number in the internet and never shared any medical information over the internet
that's all bullshit
>>52197415
>Yeah, some rogue employee working for NSA *might* look at your shit, but it has a very small chance, you'd be one out of at least millions of people, but if I give you my phone then there is a 100% chance that you will look at my shit, and I don't even gain a little bit of security from it.
So you're aiming to prove that the "gimme ur phone then :^) arguments" are not effective right? That argument is used first to show that people actually cares about their privacy, so saying that "i don't care about my privacy" is for most people a lie.
After that:
>but if I give you my phone then there is a 100% chance that you will look at my shit, and I don't even gain a little bit of security from it.
The problem here is, you actually gain security by giving your info to the government? Consider that they're not asking anymore for data like your name, social number or anything that it has a good reason to collect or have, they're collecting your browser history, the files in your computer, your habits and private conversations without warranty and without requiring an order, and even they can make a profile about you, they're basically spying you and collecting information just for the sake of doing it and they can use that information for any purpose without any warranty.
in short, the analogy is still good because the risks in both cases are the same, what it changes is that you have faith in that the chances of an individual using that information against you for something nasty are near zero. I understand that you're willingly giving that information because you feel protected and encourage other people to share their information too, but you're basically ignoring that your data is much more safe under your control that delegating it to third parties without warranty.
I can understand people get touchy about mails and messages, but why are so many of /g/ sperging out about things bureaucrats already have or get through your interaction with companies or bureaus?
>>52193749
Whoever wrote that post is a dumbfuck and needs to look up COINTELPRO
>>52197651
>Are you """""person of color""""
I'm not but it becomes harder to take you seriously, you're discrediting yourself without gaining anything imo.
>I don't think we need analogies, we just need to make people realize that even if they are good, honest people, the people in power tomorrow may have a different idea of what a good person is, and even if they support surveillance, they should know that the NSA needs to be more transparent about what it does.
I concur.
>>52197651
>the people in power tomorrow may have a different idea of what a good person is
Funny thing about people in power is that they don't need the truth. They're in power, they can make up anything they want and if you think otherwise you should go out more and observe what makes the world go round.
>>52193822
He supports a register of all muslims.
>>52191945
this is the only answer, I want my shit away I dont want a encyclopedia on the internet about me.
>>52190648
"If you have nothing to hide, can you give me your password to Facebook/Email/Other service?"
>>52191945
>>52190712
>During the second world war, for example, left-wing communist-type people were the good guys, they went against hitler's policies, but during the cold war, people with the same alignment were put in jail because the communists were suddenly the bad guys.
Just for the record, many of these people who got jailed were people who stepped on a tail of somebody who disliked them. It rarely had anything to do with the ideology itself, but more with these people openly going against existing structure of power.
They could put you down for anything, even without any kind of surveillance. Hell, if they wanted they lifted your kids from school and asked why and what they learn, if your kids didn't know the correct answer ("for the better socialistic society") you could got into shit. Getting kicked from work was the best you could often hope for.
>>52198090
fucking awful argument
like most of the stuff here
only good argument is the Edward Snowden quote
>most of the posts ITT legitimately can't differentiate between security and privacy
The government is using the entire internet infrastructure as an enormous global brainwashing and social conditioning tool.
Also everyone is on file names address location transactions, every word you ever spoke on the phone every word you typed on the net.
Whats worse is now everyones smartphone is constantly listening to every conversation in the room.
All this data is stored forever. And using advanced search algorithms and visualisations they can easily seach through this data and use it as a tool of social control.
The decentralisation of the internet is the key battle of our generation. Its the one thing that we must ensure for the good of humanity and for future generations.
>>52190648
The Snowden quote.
>>52196062
>This is a Reductio ad absurdum
reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument js
false dichotomy is not, so this case in particular is invalid, but generally reductio ad absurdum is not fallacious
>>52190712
Well said. I haven't done anything illegal in private or anonymously, but I've been a complete fucking retard sometimes and I don't want that to haunt me forever or get taken out of context by someone like an employer.
