|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2004 : 07:20:55
|
I've had a number of discussions with conservatives who defend the government's ever increasing police powers - especially surveillance powers - with the old "if you're not breaking the law, why would you care if the police have these surveillance powers?" That is, I don't care if the police tap my phone, I'm never going to be making a drug deal or arranging a murder or anything. The implied extension of this argument is "if you're opposed to the police having more surveillance powers, then you DO have something to hide."
So, how do you answer this argument. I usually go to the "the guy surveiling you might not always be doing it for legitimate reasons. The potential for abuse grows with the technology and increased powers. OR, if the government should go totalitarian, the surveillance infrastructure now being built will make it that much easier." Both of these counter arguments sound paranoid and arn't very effective.
I think the truth is - the white elephant in the room is - that just about everyone DOES have something they'd like to hide. Quirky things that are not necessarily illegal, but are embarrassing. Like a foot fetish for example. And these things are only private if they stay in the home. But if your home is open to surveillance . . . . a secret is only a secret if one person knows. Add a nosy cop to the list of people who know, and at a minimum, there's harmful gossip. There can also be socio/political character assassination. Or worse, blackmail. And so on. But this argument given to the self-richeous is not viable. THEY don't have any secrets or they believe the threat of surveillance might make you a more moral person.
So, how do you deal with this one?
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 07:35:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
So, how do you answer this argument.
I say, "I don't conduct any illegal activities, but I do like to call my husband at his office and talk dirty to him sometimes." There's not a thing in the world wrong with that, but I do prefer that it is private. |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 07:41:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
So, how do you deal with this one?
"Have you ever read 1984? Do it, then come talk to me." |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 07:47:42 [Permalink]
|
It's rather like the quaint myth of if you are arrested and are innocent, you don't need a lawyer.
The fact is that you need one more than ever.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 08:02:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
So, how do you deal with this one?
There are several good reasons for protecting peoples privacy:
- Protecting potential embarrassing information from coming out, like fetishes
- Protection against discrimination. For example, it isn't difficult to imagine you would want to protect your homosexuality from people.
- Protecting your security and that of your family, for example in domestic violence situation.
- Protecting job security. For example, you may not want your teenage drug use or medical history to become known. Or, in the case of a woman, any potential abortion you may have had.
- Confidentiality can make medical treatment more accessible, for example for people with a STD.
Interestingly i had this same discussion about a year ago with a former classmate of mine. He argues against privacy in favour of more security, and i for privacy with less security.
Currently, after the Amsterdam city council coupled their population-files to the public housing files, he has been asked to vacate his place of residence as he is subletting it from a colleague which is not allowed by the colleagues rent contract. I wonder how he feels about privacy now.. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 08:32:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
I've had a number of discussions with conservatives who defend the government's ever increasing police powers - especially surveillance powers - with the old "if you're not breaking the law, why would you care if the police have these surveillance powers?" That is, I don't care if the police tap my phone, I'm never going to be making a drug deal or arranging a murder or anything. The implied extension of this argument is "if you're opposed to the police having more surveillance powers, then you DO have something to hide."
So, how do you answer this argument. I usually go to the "the guy surveiling you might not always be doing it for legitimate reasons. The potential for abuse grows with the technology and increased powers. OR, if the government should go totalitarian, the surveillance infrastructure now being built will make it that much easier." Both of these counter arguments sound paranoid and arn't very effective.
I think the truth is - the white elephant in the room is - that just about everyone DOES have something they'd like to hide. Quirky things that are not necessarily illegal, but are embarrassing. Like a foot fetish for example. And these things are only private if they stay in the home. But if your home is open to surveillance . . . . a secret is only a secret if one person knows. Add a nosy cop to the list of people who know, and at a minimum, there's harmful gossip. There can also be socio/political character assassination. Or worse, blackmail. And so on. But this argument given to the self-richeous is not viable. THEY don't have any secrets or they believe the threat of surveillance might make you a more moral person.
So, how do you deal with this one?
Because people have things that they are involved in which they do not want made public. It is also a powerful force in stiffling dissent. Please remind them of the abuses of COINTELPRO and the civil rights movement. It is the crux of what those kinds of police powers can do when abused. The arguement is usually made that expanded police powers of the intrusive kind = more security. It does not.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Poor Richard's Almanack. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 12/21/2004 08:33:39 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 09:21:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
<snip>Currently, after the Amsterdam city council coupled their population-files to the public housing files, he has been asked to vacate his place of residence as he is subletting it from a colleague which is not allowed by the colleagues rent contract. I wonder how he feels about privacy now..
Unfortunately, this anecdote proves the rule. He was violating the rules and greater surveillance got him caught. It's arguable the greater surveillance did some good, as he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing. No harm was done, good was. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 09:58:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
<snip>Currently, after the Amsterdam city council coupled their population-files to the public housing files, he has been asked to vacate his place of residence as he is subletting it from a colleague which is not allowed by the colleagues rent contract. I wonder how he feels about privacy now..
Unfortunately, this anecdote proves the rule. He was violating the rules and greater surveillance got him caught. It's arguable the greater surveillance did some good, as he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing. No harm was done, good was.
The other lesson to be learned from this though is that even though the guy never really considered he was doing anything wrong (as this rule has never really been enforced) he still had something to fear from greater serveillance. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 10:24:02 [Permalink]
|
Just ask them (the ones who are all in favor of increased survailance) to let you into their home and allow you to go through any of their belongings you care to. Go through their computer's temp files, check their surfing history, see what kind of porn they have stored in the hidden folder they created to keep their spouse from finding it, check their VHS tapes for "home video" content, check their bank accounts and credit card statements to see what they are spending money on, delve through their medical records, ect...
If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't object....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 10:37:23 [Permalink]
|
| Nice, Reverse Dude-ology there. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 11:55:18 [Permalink]
|
And if they say, "Well, it's the government doing the looking, not you!".
Respond with, "Anything the government learns, unless it involves CURRENT national security, will be public knowledge freely available to every US citizen after a period of time. Thank you Freedom of Information Act!"
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 12:35:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Just ask them (the ones who are all in favor of increased survailance) to let you into their home and allow you to go through any of their belongings you care to. Go through their computer's temp files, check their surfing history, see what kind of porn they have stored in the hidden folder they created to keep their spouse from finding it, check their VHS tapes for "home video" content, check their bank accounts and credit card statements to see what they are spending money on, delve through their medical records, ect...
If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't object....
Just to be devil's advocate so as to try and tease out the best argument here, the answer might be that they'd be willing to allow a professional investigator do that in the interests of stopping terrorism but to have a family member, friend, or aquaintance do it, someone with no legitimate reason to go through their personal stuff, is totally different and unacceptable. And there is a legitimate side to that argument - ideally the investigator has no interest in all the dirt and embarrassing crap people do. He will ignore that stuff in his investigations and keep it essentially confidential. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 12:37:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And if they say, "Well, it's the government doing the looking, not you!".
Respond with, "Anything the government learns, unless it involves CURRENT national security, will be public knowledge freely available to every US citizen after a period of time. Thank you Freedom of Information Act!"
Ok, here you answer my last reply. . . . but again, if none of that embarrassing stuff has anything to do with terrorism, then the government wouldn't have a record of it. They would only have a record that you had been searched and nothing incriminating was found. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 13:18:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And if they say, "Well, it's the government doing the looking, not you!".
Respond with, "Anything the government learns, unless it involves CURRENT national security, will be public knowledge freely available to every US citizen after a period of time. Thank you Freedom of Information Act!"
Ok, here you answer my last reply. . . . but again, if none of that embarrassing stuff has anything to do with terrorism, then the government wouldn't have a record of it. They would only have a record that you had been searched and nothing incriminating was found.
Define incriminating |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 13:38:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Just ask them (the ones who are all in favor of increased survailance) to let you into their home and allow you to go through any of their belongings you care to. Go through their computer's temp files, check their surfing history, see what kind of porn they have stored in the hidden folder they created to keep their spouse from finding it, check their VHS tapes for "home video" content, check their bank accounts and credit card statements to see what they are spending money on, delve through their medical records, ect...
If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't object....
Just to be devil's advocate so as to try and tease out the best argument here, the answer might be that they'd be willing to allow a professional investigator do that in the interests of stopping terrorism but to have a family member, friend, or aquaintance do it, someone with no legitimate reason to go through their personal stuff, is totally different and unacceptable. And there is a legitimate side to that argument - ideally the investigator has no interest in all the dirt and embarrassing crap people do. He will ignore that stuff in his investigations and keep it essentially confidential.
The complaints would be that the freind or family member may have additional problems.
1) The individuals may claim to be a friend, but actually may be digging to find embarrassing information to release to serve some grudge.
2) The individual may want to shield their family member from prosecution/investigation.
3) The individual may feel pressured to find something so that they won't be next. (See the failed "fink on your neighbors" program.)
4) The family member may have some axe to grind.
5) The government has no files on whom is friends with whom. If so, I could be investigated merely because I have a friend who is a member of the Communist party. (She joined as a form of protest during the civil rights movement.)
Other issues
6) Who determines what organizations or groups qualify for terrorist status?
7) What is to prevent people from being investigated for being part of a dissent group?
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2004 : 14:05:58 [Permalink]
|
On a related note:
quote:
A System of Injustice
America Locked Up
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
While enjoying Christmas, good food and drink with family and friends in the warmth and comfort of your home, take a moment to remember the falsely imprisoned. Think about how your own family would handle the grief, because wrongful imprisonment can happen to you.
In a just published book, "Thinking About Crime," Michael Tonry, a distinguished American law professor and director of Cambridge University's Institute of Criminology, reports that the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison than any country on earth. The US incarceration rate is as much as 12 times higher than that of European countries.
Unless you believe that Americans are more criminally inclined than other humans, what can explain the US incarceration rate being so far outside the international mainstream? I can think of the following reasons:
I was going to make a seperate thread out of this, but it seems to fit here all too well.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
