How do you argue with
>if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear
>>54668583
Le give me all your info le right now. Tell me your le credit card details.
>>54668583
I tell them that my home is not a hiding place, but that doesn't mean stupid niggers can waltz right in when they feel like it.
>>54668583
>failed as a poet
>almost committed sodoku
>became GOAT propaganda minister
We're all gonna make it bros
everyone in this board have child porn stored
thread ended
>>54668598
Because it works. If you're perfectly OK with the government going through all your shit, you shouldn't have a problem with a regular joe like me going through all your shit.
>>54668583
>Giving up on privacy because you have nothing to fear is equal to giving up on free speech because you have nothing to say.
>>54668583
Not caring about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like not caring about free speech because you have nothing to say.
>>54668623
you have nothing to hide*
>>54668625
Is this snowden sentence really that good?
Like, those two are completly different things desu
>Sometimes I'm afraid to get out of bed in the morning. There's nothing to get up for
>mfw story of my life
>>54668583
it's the same as saying you don't need free speech because you got nothing to say
>>54668583
>show me your pepe folder
>>54668598
Trusting some random dude on the internet with your credit card details is different from trusting the police with your ID. The police has the right to know if you're doing something illegal. Some anonymous dude doesn't have any right to see "what you don't have to hide".
>>54668583
there are several arguments.
1. everybody has something, some information about themselves, they would rather control themselves. and they should have the right to.
2. it goes both ways. if there are no secrets for citizens to have, there should also be full, unconditional transparency of absolutely everything the governing body does at all times. because, you know, if you've got nothing to hide... the same goes for corporations, of course, at which point it would really, really become interesting.
my personal opinion, although this is actually difficult to argue, is that the world wouldn't work with at least some level of rules-bending, some basic level of crime. it's just in human nature to be a little disobedient of the rules; that's why virtually everybody has tried smoking weed at some point in their lives, that's why virtually everybody has shoplifted at some point in their lives, that's why virtually everyone goes faster than the speed limit at least every once in a while. rules are there as a basic framework for humans to live together but nobody is really every served by strictly enforcing every rule we have ever made for ourselves. this is btw recognized in police law, as it states in most states that for minor offenses, police can choose to not prosecute if it doesn't serve public interest. if we drop this practice and start strictly enforcing every little rule, society will go even more to shit than it already has thanks to the catastrophic misdistribution of wealth.
Because your government won't be well intentioned in going through your stuff, what if the information leaks, or a bad government operator leaks stuff to bad people that will kindap, steal, know your shit,
>>54668761
This kinda makes sense. Particularly 2
>>54668693
they're actually not that different, no.
this entire discussion largely ignores the vast difference between "illegal" and "evil". there often is somewhat of a gap between law and public interest.
>>54668761
I like option 2 very much.
Snowden be like: If you have nothing to hide, why cry about the leaks :^)
>>54668751
this is not about your ID. this is about monitoring everything you do, which comes down exactly to "some random dude on the internet having my credit card information", seeing how i'm not even a US citizen nor do i live in the US and an NSA employee is thus nothing more than some randum dude on the internet to me.
fourth amendment
/thread
>>54668623
>>54668625
Nice strawman
>>54668784
these are the Bruce Schneier and the Michael Hayden viewpoints. they are more than valid. i'm not sure, however, if this was supposed a technical or a philosophical discussion of the matter.
>>54668827
not a strawman. called "analogy".
>>54668852
Privacy and freedom of speech are not analogous.
>>54668885
They are
>>54668583
Ask them if they'd be okay with undressing or going to the bathroom in public, while being filmed. After all, if they're not doing anything wrong, why should they care about privacy?
Americans are so botnet they have absolutely no idea how fucked the world is. of course they say shit like this. india is literally overflowing with shit, china is on the verge of environmental apocalypse (80% of water is undrinkable; air quality is like smoking cigarettes), middle east is fucked to the stone age, africa always been fucked, south america is a giant drug farm. i live amoung them and no one has a clue what is going on they're just botnet to hell. how could anyone question the need for millions of people to need anonymity. doesn't matter, just let another tyrant like sadam (being cliché for the clueless) come to power and we'll just kill another million kids.
>>54668813
Monitoring everything you do on the internet doesn't mean seeing your transactions details.
It means seeing whatever you are browsing. Some banks give you a device which creates a secure key that you use to log in. This kind of transaction can't be really monitored because it involves offline encryption.
>>54668583
I do have shit to hide. I dissent. I partake in occasional civil disobedience. I favor extremely unpopular political movements.
All of this could be used against me should I ever get into politics.
And anyone who can't say the same is a sad fucking lemming.
>>54668693
>Like, those two are completly different things desu
They're actually not, as I've explained here
>>54670351
any celebrity who supports botnet should release transcripts of the therapy they go to, since they're all degenerate drug addicts
I have not because I have a security clearance, so that shuts those idiots up immediately when I tell them so.
>>54668583
"Those who give up essential liberty for a little bit of temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"
>>54668583
What if I do have something to hide?
That's why I support privacy and freedom
>>54668974
"xd no"
good job
>>54668583
>tfw you will never be bros with Goebbels
>"have fun getting your data stolen when the shitty government data protection is pwned by a ballsy skiddie"
>>54668583
>letting strangers in government know more about your daily life than your own family
>being A-OK with it
What's wrong with people? Has there been some widespread brainwashing program in the west that we're unaware of? Why are people ok with surveillance of everything they do?
>>54668583
The simple answer is you don't know what tomorrow holds. Let's explore the issue with this argument using a hypothetical situation:
Say you're using Windows 10 and don't care about all the telemetry and so on because you feel you have nothing to hide. You install your normal utilities and so on like Firefox or Chrome and your favorite media player like MPV or VLC or MPC or whatever, and you install good ol' WinRAR.
Now, a few years down the line, in a last-ditch effort to prevent themselves from going bankrupt, RARLAB goes to court over all the people using WinRAR past the 40 day free trial and argues that they are circumventing its protection by continuing to use it. Somehow, they win, and a judge finds all the users of WinRAR who didn't pay for it (yourself included) liable for $150 in damages for every week past the 40 day trial that they continued to not pay for WinRAR.
Now, Windows' telemetry data is used in the case to identify all users who installed WinRAR and the dates they installed it, including yours. You are now liable for thousands of dollars in damages for simply installing a program, even if you never opened or used it, because you thought you had nothing to hide.
"But I don't use WinRAR/I bought WinRAR/etc." - There are thousands of variations on this situation, one of them is bound to apply to you.
You should never take for granted the value of privacy, you never know what sort of criminal the future could make you.
>>54668583
http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf
>>54671061
The solution is simple: Just don't use pirated versions of WinRar!
>>54671092
/thread
You dont decide what you have to hide. You dont know what you have to hide. And it can also change on a whim, especially when being observed by the government.
t. legalbro
>>54672906
Not to mention you have no control over what is done with your information.
>>54668583
why if the ones that check if i hide something give me reasons to hide things from them?
>>54668583
The government is hiding things from you, either they don't believe in their own words or they're doing something wrong
I don't. Only a complete and utter fucktard would try and argue with truth.
>>54668583
>>if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear
Except the people who tell lies about you.
Reality won't help you then.
Bend over, officer. I need to check your anus for drugs. What? "No," You say? Well obviously you're the one hiding something. I'm going to have to report you.
Ask them if they're a better person than MLK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#FBI_and_King.27s_personal_life
>>54668583
When have humans ever proven to be trustworthy, ever? Everyone should be able to hide their own shit including you. What, is freedom too much for you? Would you rather take a step towards slavery not only for yourself but to spite your fellows?
>>54671061
tl;dr
>if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear
>if I have nothing to hide you have no reason to look
>>54668583
You have nothing to hide until the government decides something about your life is a problem, whether that be your religion, political views, etc.
>>54678230
That's retarded. They don't know if you have anything to hide or not. That's why they need to look.
They're just reassuring you if you really do have nothing to hide.
>>54668613
>sodoku
I think you misspelled suicide Mr. Anonymous
>>54678748
I think you misspelled sudoku, Mr. Anonymous
>>54678761
ay your a cheeky wanker I'll give you that
But what if i DO have something to hide?
Anonymity matter, especially when I'm living in a commie country
A lot of people are bringing up good points in this thread.
4chan thread actually has me thinking.
>>54670351
But should you get into politics isn't it expected that you have a transparent background?
>>54668751
The police is corrupt. In your ideal world that's okay, but we don't live in it.
>>54668583
Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I don't need to justify my rights, as they are mine from birth. Just like I don't need to justify my right to free speech or my right to bear arms.
In order to attack or defend these rights, both sides need to ask themselves what the legitimate role of government is.
Being from the US, I have wonderful blueprints. The Declaration of Independence is why, and the Constitution is how. So, if you subscribe to Constitutionalism, you would say that you believe that individuals, when left alone and given the freedom to make their own decisions, tend to do so more effectively than government bureaucrats in Washington, and therefore, it is morally imperative for the government to protect and guarantee people with said freedom and liberty as laid out in the United States Constitution.
>>54671061
Good post, hits the nail right on the head.
TL;DR shit changes and if they have info about you you could get fucked
if the government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear. oh nope the government gets to keep its secrets but not citizens?
the government gets to keep their guns, but not citizens?
How are centralized control structures any safer than decentralized ones?
>>54668583
>Why not?
Why? There is no need. The advantages are marginal at best and the disadvantages are catastrophic at worst.
>>54679171
>How are centralized control structures any safer than decentralized ones?
They aren't. They aren't safer, they aren't more efficient, and they aren't more cost effective, which is why the US wanted the individual Cities, Counties, and States to have their own form of Government, with the US government only taking an interest in matters that reflected on constitutional rights. Centralized power is like yoking two horses together. Both horses will only go as fast as the slowest horse.
How about there is a reason I have a door on my house? If I didn't I would just let everyone in.
Reminder that only plebs trust the government implicitly. The government can't even keep its own secrets secret, why in fuck's name would you trust them with ANYTHING that you don't have to?
Do you not realize that massive dossiers of information on people around the globe have inherent value to advertisers? A dossier on you WILL be sold. And sold. And sold. And eventually, I'll be able to pay pennies for access to everything about you.
Thank you for making your identity so easy for me to steal, you fucking lemming.
>>54679082
Is this from something? My professor has said this almost verbatim.
>>54679362
It might be. I know I've heard it or read it somewhere else before (at least something similar), and committed it to memory. It's worth remembering.
>>54679396
Yeah, it's quite good. Are you by chance a professor?
>>54668613
>almost committed sodoku
>>54679435
No.
Nobody shows their true self 100% of the time. Nobody acts the same way with their grandmother as with their friends. It's a fundamental part of being human.
So obviously, if you are trying to take that away, you don't understand what it is to be human.
Your move, Lizard Overseer.
>>54668583
It's probably OK. I don't think a government has ever killed anybody.
A lot of these are fucking stupid and deal with unnecessary "what if" scenarios and childish "gotcha" arguments. No, giving my personal financial details to a random stranger is not the same as giving it to the government with much more to lose if caught and relatively MUCH less to gain from immediately defrauding me through the use of that information.
Plain and simple. I have nothing to hide right now. BUT when the government suddenly decides that blank (guns, gays, property, knowledge, dissent, whatever the fuck the other person values, literally anything) is illegal I don't want the government to have the ability to search me at will in a million different ways and be able to run me through the legal system straight to a prison or a cell with no cameras before i can blink. For this reason I appose such searches without reasonable warrant
This image sums it up pretty well.
>>54668813
Considering most of the guys sifting through the data collected by dragnet surveillance are probably underpaid can't-poo-in-loo pajeets, it's a real problem.
Human civilization would have never advanced if people could not hide things from the general public and the government.
Movements and revolutions would have been stopped before they could ever gain traction.
The people who want to be able to see everything are the most secretive of all.
If the government need privacy to protect it's interests than so do I.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
>>54679656
Hey! The original quote. I hadn't seen it before.
>>54679656
>A lot of these are fucking stupid and deal with unnecessary "what if" scenarios
>I have nothing to hide right now. BUT when the government suddenly decides that blank (guns, gays, property, knowledge, dissent, whatever the fuck the other person values, literally anything) is illegal I don't want the government to ...
S N O W F L A K E
>>54679656
if you have such an adversarial relationship with the government maybe it's indicative of how much you're involved in it.
It's a democracy for a reason, representative or otherwise.
>>54679803
Not him, but this means that my opinion alone won't change things much.
Most politicians think banning encryption is a reasonable idea.
>>54679827
only for other people, though
all their files will still be encrypted
Well since the US government has routinely been so fond of grouping encryption methods into the same category as real-life blood-drawing people-killing weapons, how about this analogy:
Citizens shouldn't be allowed to own bullet proof vests in case the police need to be able to shoot people (rogue citizens only of course) without needing armor-piercing rounds.
>>54679932
This always annoys me. Trying to force other people to open their information but refusing yourself.
>>54679941
A bullet proof vest is a great analogy.
Or we could try to get encryption considered a gun in America. At least that way some people will defend it.
>>54668620
>>54668583
Everyone has something to hide.
Anything can be used against you.
>>54679968
Honestly I would be cool with taking an absolutist approach to the freedom of speech. I feel that the Constitution has been poorly upheld in that sense since the early 1900s. Laws against hate speech and the classic "Shouting fire in a crowded room" parable. Schenck v. United States is especially troubling.
>Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war
This is super bad news guys. It means that the more fragile and susceptible to "problematic language" the citizens get, the more the government is able to limit our free speech.
>>54668583
>Hey guys, we just invented this chip that can read your thoughts. Mind getting it implanted real quick? Don't worry - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
>>54668583
Here's one: any law a benevolent government passes today, can be used against the people by a future malevolent government.
Example: Using terrorism as a motive to legalize and easily enable going through people's personal files without obstruction today for to save them from said terrorism. In 50 years a government set on dictatorship and population control is not breaking any laws and using that old law unjustly against it's population.
Just because nobody would misuse it today, doesn't mean nobody will in the future.
Never give them an inch, and fight forever for your freedom.
>>54668623
How? You need other people to have free speech if you have nothing to say hence why you should care. You don't need other people to have privacy.
Also having nothing to say is seen as negative while nothing to hide is seen as positive.
>>54680148
You don't want other people looking /smarter/ than you, do you?
>>54668583
Sure Uncle Sam! I will tell you all my secrets as soon as you tell me yours. After all, you shouldnt be enforcing rules onto people which you cannot subdue to yourself first.
Absolutely nothing new is going to come from debating this issue. This issue is hundreds of years old and has already been explored to death.
Some people will pretend there's more to discuss because of technological changes, but there's not. All you have to do to prevent the modern world from becoming a tyrannical hell hole is apply the exact same well-reasoned protections that the founding fathers agreed on in the 18th century. The fourth amendment was perfectly clear.
Unfortunately our joke politicians have chosen to ignore the statesmen who preceded them.
Rick Falkvinge explained it well here:
https://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/debunking-the-dangerous-nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/
>>54679524
>>>/reddit/
>*Knock Knock*
>"Who is it?"
>"Hello complete stranger I don't know and I have never seen, mind if I go through all of your personal belongings, read all your emails and see everything you have on your PC?"
>"What? No!"
>"Why not? You shouldn't be afraid of me, after all, it's not like you're hiding something :^)"
If you give government access and trust to monitor everything you do, and you trust what they say other people did (since they monitor everything other people do as well); then you give the government the ability to dictate what you have done by falsifying that data. You essentially give them the ability to decide what the truth is. Do you trust your government enough to agree to everything they say, unconditionally? For example, will you trust them even if they say you are a terrorist whereas you aren't? And are you sure you can trust them when they would accuse someone else of a crime, based on their monitoring?
i have everything to hide and have all to fear,not because ill intent of myself but of your intent as you hide from me and fear me.
>>54668583
1. Whenever say this "nothing to hide" stuff, I like to say: "Well then, put down your pants. If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear."
And it's not a good example because the answer to that and to your question are the same: "It's not your fucking business."
2. Democaracy is build upon "unalienable rights". This includes for example the freedom of speech. If you cripple the freedom of speach by things like general surveillance or intimidation you automatically destroy the foundations of democracy. You can't bend that rules, either you have a democracy or not.
3. You never know if the gouverment won't turn into an evil regime at some point in the future. And if this ever happens they have ALL the data to eliminate the people they don't like.
4. Even if you have extreme faith in your gouverment, in fact there are gouverments which are bad who already use technologies to find dissidents. I.e. China where people get an "Index" based on their internet traffic - if you are connected to people with a "bad" index, your own index automatically gets a little "worse". This is absolutely against human rights.
5. Just systems work because they have a balance of Power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are no exceptions. Who controls those who control people?
6. People ALWAYS have interest. Especially politicans don't move through empty space, but they have to deal with a lot of powerfull groups at the same time. Theoretically you COULD tell the automobile, oil or pharmacy industry to fuck off and keep away the crap. But you know this won't happen because they would just destroy politicians by funding their enemies, closing factories and blaming the politician for it and so on..
Now can we affort to let dependent people have absolute power? No we can't afford that.
7. You want to live in a world where people can surveill your sex life? Your affairs? Your daughter's sex life? Privacy is a human right.
>>54668620
I have it on YouTube.
>>54668583
I did not get top secret clearance because I am beleived a terrorist and a spy.
I have done nothing against the US, and am open to letting them go through my entire life as proof.
Yet at the end, I have now failed the poly and its been entered on my record of being suspected.
Just because you have nothing to hide now doesn't mean you will always have nothing to hide.
Laws change, things that were once legal can become illegal.
>>54668583
Argue with that the same must apply to the goverment. But you can see how buttblasted they got over the smowden leaks etc
>>54682640
Actually I can just add on right fucking now why hiding is good.
Went to Potamac Mills in Woodbridge VA, grabbed a McDouble from the MCD in there.
130 USD in fraud charges, 4 more attempts after the card got locked out.
Worst part, card is old style mag strip and pressed numbers, nothing to lift with a scanner.
Restaurant is doing fraud or somebody has a programmer and managed to photo the numbers.
So yeah, there's a damn good reason to hide.
I usually ask people for banking/cc details, affairs, nudes, porn habits etc. Most people shut up and see the point
