PDA

View Full Version : If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?



HornyPope
05-24-2006, 05:10 PM
I've seen this argument brought over on this very forum a number of times and finally I stumbled on an article good enough to answer this very question. For the interested:


The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Full story here (http://wired.com/news/columns/0,70886-0.html?tw=wn_index_23)

Paint_It_Black
05-24-2006, 09:21 PM
But you're still only against it for ideological reasons, right? It still doesn't refute the argument that if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide. It's just saying "that's not the point". Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?

HornyPope
05-24-2006, 09:58 PM
It doesn't refuse the phrase per se but it says that its premise is invalid because privacy isn't about hiding something. It's a basic human right, and need.

Endymion
05-24-2006, 10:43 PM
would you want your parents to watch you jack off?

T-6005
05-24-2006, 11:21 PM
would you want your parents to watch you jack off?
Shit, is that wrong?

Sin Studly
05-25-2006, 12:23 AM
It doesn't refuse the phrase per se but it says that its premise is invalid because privacy isn't about hiding something. It's a basic human right, and need.

But how far can you take it? Knowing what the fuck people are up to is a pretty basic governmental and policing need.

HornyPope
05-25-2006, 12:56 AM
I think it's important to first acknowledge the notion that privacy is your fundamental right, and only then can the people work out agreements (laws, provisions) with law-enforcement agencies as to how they shall proceed in their duty in a manner that corresponds to reality and common sense.

Sin Studly
05-25-2006, 01:05 AM
What kind of privacy are you talking about, exactly? Privacy of data, privacy of your living area, what? And to what level?

Or is it just the simple ideology that 'We should get a right to privacy'? Because, y'know, that could be taken to mean anything.

wheelchairman
05-25-2006, 05:12 AM
There is no golden rule for what privacy should be kept and shouldn't. I would imagine that would depend entirely on the social situation of a given country.

In England they have cameras on the streets, but the cops have no guns.

In America cops are just nuts, I mean real dicks, but they have to ask nicely to come into your home if they don't have a warrant. I don't remember how the situation is after the Patriot act, but I think that is the same.

I don't have a clue what they can do in Denmark, but I don't see that many cops anyways.

I think it's a balancing act to find what is reasonable. Would 24 hour, 'round the clock surveillance of everyone make sense, not really. I wouldn't like it. Tapping my phones, and reading my emails/mails. Again not unless I was suspect for a crime.

HornyPope
05-25-2006, 09:45 AM
What Per said. Also the kind of privacy i'm talking about is listed within the article. Read up.

It obviously has to reflect the reality and the situation of the country.

Sin Studly
05-25-2006, 09:49 AM
Well, obviously being watched in your own home is unreasonable, if you're not suspected of doing anything wrong. What an insane waste of police resources.

noodlesfan
06-10-2006, 01:11 PM
would you want your parents to watch you jack off?
if they'd sit there and watch, i'd hope that they'd have the courtesy to come and help at least.

JoY
06-10-2006, 01:18 PM
hold on, I'm all pro privacy. man, you won't believe how much I dig privacy & think it's everyone's right to protect their privacy. still I don't get why you can't oblige people to give a hair for research in rape-/murder-/something as severe cases. it's the useless pieces of DNA they work with, informationless, except you can compare the pieces, etcetera. as long as there are strict rules on what pieces of DNA you can use & which you can't, I think it's bullshit you can't ask for someone's DNA & just fucking get it. it's like asking someone for their shoesize. it doesn't tell anything about themselves, you can just compare it with the evidence at hand.

my rant for today, which wasn't of high quality.

Llamas
06-10-2006, 02:35 PM
yes but I see a problem in ID checks and asking for phone numbers and addresses and such. I had a job in the past where they changed the punch clocks to be thumb prints. You couldn't clock in without your thumb print. That's invasion of privacy. My boss shouldn't have my thumbprints in a database with all my personal info with it.

noodlesfan
06-10-2006, 03:25 PM
at least he's not just going around after people touch stuff and dusting/recording them. THAT would be creepy

0r4ng3
06-10-2006, 06:23 PM
if they'd sit there and watch, i'd hope that they'd have the courtesy to come and help at least.
Wait...you want...your parents...to...

Oh my.

NOAMR
06-13-2006, 03:21 AM
hold on, I'm all pro privacy. man, you won't believe how much I dig privacy & think it's everyone's right to protect their privacy. still I don't get why you can't oblige people to give a hair for research in rape-/murder-/something as severe cases. it's the useless pieces of DNA they work with, informationless, except you can compare the pieces, etcetera. as long as there are strict rules on what pieces of DNA you can use & which you can't, I think it's bullshit you can't ask for someone's DNA & just fucking get it. it's like asking someone for their shoesize. it doesn't tell anything about themselves, you can just compare it with the evidence at hand.

my rant for today, which wasn't of high quality.

If they have your DNA, they can find out at any place whether you've been there. Everyone is against rape, murder etc, but what if the law gets even stricter, and forbids to as example give pamflets to the people. If they got your DNA, they can easely find out you've spread it, cuz it's on every pamflet they find. Or if they become more repression against for example graffiti. If they find graffiti, they look who's DNA is on it, and they got you. There are a million of examples which you can imagine. The world can become a scary place if they got your info. They can easely label a lot, all your daily actions, as wrong, and you can do nothing against it, cuz from the first move you put, they snap you.

That_Guy91
06-13-2006, 03:24 AM
Hey look, NOAMR's back!


And he's still retarded!

T-6005
06-13-2006, 03:36 AM
I thought NOAMR was a girl.

Sin Studly
06-13-2006, 03:38 AM
Obviously, it's impossible for a male to have political opinions as fucking stupid as NOAMR's.

JoY
06-13-2006, 03:44 AM
If they have your DNA, they can find out at any place whether you've been there. Everyone is against rape, murder etc, but what if the law gets even stricter, and forbids to as example give pamflets to the people. If they got your DNA, they can easely find out you've spread it, cuz it's on every pamflet they find. Or if they become more repression against for example graffiti. If they find graffiti, they look who's DNA is on it, and they got you. There are a million of examples which you can imagine. The world can become a scary place if they got your info. They can easely label a lot, all your daily actions, as wrong, and you can do nothing against it, cuz from the first move you put, they snap you.
this is the most stupid argument I've ever heard. you need more proof than a hair anyway with at least Western lawsystems. stuff like that can't proof anything, if you don't have a confession, or witnesses, a motive..... you could've walked past the crimescnene & have lost a hair. however, it's a lot less likely you walk past the crimescene & ejaculate in the victim's body by mistake.

there's a database of fingerprints & may I add, only fingerprints of those they should have fingerprints of. having said that, you'd only get a DNA database with the most wanted criminals, because I'm talking severe crimes to use DNA of everyone in the area in. you can check a whole neighbourhood for DNA, because a girl in the neighbourhood was raped, but do you really think they're going to save every tiny bit they stumbled on, or just the DNA of the one that appeared to be guilty? & even if they're going to save it all on their little harddisk, I want our system to demand DNA in high profile cases. not in cases about who spit out that piece of bubblegum in the theater.

what are the typical ways to leave DNA, try to think of that. mostly blood, saliva, hairs, sperm... & when someone's blood &/or sperm are on a crime scene, that'd indicate a rather problematic situation (I don't know if you slobber all over your graffiti or cum on it regularly, but normally yeah) & I have no problem with a quick check to see if it's from anyone the police is already familliar with.

& it's not info! it's a stupid fucking code. it says absolutely nothing about you, except if you committed the crime they're investigating or not & who did it if you didn't. & it can prove your innocence aswell, I imagine that's pretty attractive.


it's only THIS subject that I wish there was less privacy-blahblah & more stricter rules.

JoY
06-13-2006, 03:54 AM
I forgot to mention the most ridiculous part about your post; they'll snap you if you'd committed a crime. they won't arrest you for breathing, except if a law gets accepted in which being a retard is a high profile crime. (which I'm totally for, by the way) as long as we have a lawsystem to protect us, our environment & society, I don't think there will be any laws accepted in which your daily actions could be twisted & turned into a crime, unless your daily routine involves slaughtering people. for instance. so I don't know what you're planning on doing in the future, but where I come from, arresting a criminal is not a bad thing. & if you happen to be the one that gets arrested, then I can imagine it sucks to be you, but you just had it fucking coming.

noodlesfan
06-13-2006, 04:33 AM
I forgot to mention the most ridiculous part about your post; they'll snap you if you'd committed a crime. they won't arrest you for breathing, except if a law gets accepted in which being a retard is a high profile crime. (which I'm totally for, by the way) as long as we have a lawsystem to protect us, our environment & society, I don't think there will be any laws accepted in which your daily actions could be twisted & turned into a crime, unless your daily routine involves slaughtering people. for instance. so I don't know what you're planning on doing in the future, but where I come from, arresting a criminal is not a bad thing. & if you happen to be the one that gets arrested, then I can imagine it sucks to be you, but you just had it fucking coming.
i'm in big trouble

Sin Studly
06-13-2006, 04:52 AM
Hint ; Don't argue with NOAMR.

JoY
06-13-2006, 05:28 AM
don't worry. I'm done.

NOAMR
06-22-2006, 04:49 AM
this is the most stupid argument I've ever heard. you need more proof than a hair anyway with at least Western lawsystems. stuff like that can't proof anything, if you don't have a confession, or witnesses, a motive..... you could've walked past the crimescnene & have lost a hair. however, it's a lot less likely you walk past the crimescene & ejaculate in the victim's body by mistake.

there's a database of fingerprints & may I add, only fingerprints of those they should have fingerprints of. having said that, you'd only get a DNA database with the most wanted criminals, because I'm talking severe crimes to use DNA of everyone in the area in. you can check a whole neighbourhood for DNA, because a girl in the neighbourhood was raped, but do you really think they're going to save every tiny bit they stumbled on, or just the DNA of the one that appeared to be guilty? & even if they're going to save it all on their little harddisk, I want our system to demand DNA in high profile cases. not in cases about who spit out that piece of bubblegum in the theater.

what are the typical ways to leave DNA, try to think of that. mostly blood, saliva, hairs, sperm... & when someone's blood &/or sperm are on a crime scene, that'd indicate a rather problematic situation (I don't know if you slobber all over your graffiti or cum on it regularly, but normally yeah) & I have no problem with a quick check to see if it's from anyone the police is already familliar with.

& it's not info! it's a stupid fucking code. it says absolutely nothing about you, except if you committed the crime they're investigating or not & who did it if you didn't. & it can prove your innocence aswell, I imagine that's pretty attractive.


it's only THIS subject that I wish there was less privacy-blahblah & more stricter rules.


If the crime is committed on public, "normal" ground, they have nothing with your DNA, but if your DNA is for example on all the pamflets they founded, or next to a train rail where no normal people come, they have at least something to smash a confession out of you.

Then you exally bring a great argument for the non-DNA-donors: they schould only need DNA which they "need", so why schould you give it, you're no criminal. This is for example for protesters, activists, who schould give their DNA: it's just to criminilize them, so that they will feel like a criminal.

Then about the "most important part". I agree we disagree their the most. I think you have way too much trust in the government. Critism of it schould always be allowed, or we live in a dictature. If you got no privacy, data gets centralized etc, they can easely do whatever they want. And even tho you live in a democracy, that isn't perfect either. We're all different, and we have all different ideas about what's good and wrong. If you make absolute laws, where there are no exceptions, you create oppression, since one could not do what he like, and where he do nothing wrong.
What do you define as "crime": an act where you hurt... somebody, or something that is forbidden by the government?
You have way too much trust in the today's government and world, I think you schould always be criticly.