If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear • Hacker News Board

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#121

Post by partisan » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:50 PM UTC

freshhawk wrote: post #95

jliptzin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand about it is that the right to bear arms was rooted in the desire to allow citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government so they could organize an effective overthrow if the need ever arose again (after the revolutionary war). Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash any kind of uprising even if you somehow managed to obtain every legally purchase…

"Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash ..." Would they? They should try doing that now in all the various wars and police actions they are involved in.

1. They can't, at least not as plainly as stated here. The wars being fought today are asymmetrical and, in many cases, ideological. You can take out a pocket of resistance here or there, but there are no huge battles like in a war between two nations. Victories are small, cost more, are not decisive, but are guaranteed due to the overwhelming strength of the weapons.

2. More importantly: they don't want to. long drawn out wars are profitable, numbing, and demoralizing. Most people don't care about them anymore. They just happen in the background. No thumbs up, no thumbs down. Go on about your business. That's the best type of reaction a government could ask for when pushing the agenda of lobbyists and the corporations they represent.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#122

Post by reagency » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:50 PM UTC

joonoro wrote: post #93

jliptzin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand about it is that the right to bear arms was rooted in the desire to allow citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government so they could organize an effective overthrow if the need ever arose again (after the revolutionary war). Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash any kind of uprising even if you somehow managed to obtain every legally purchase…

>Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash any kind of uprising even if you somehow managed to obtain every legally purchased firearm in the country. You'd be surprised at how effective guerrilla warfare is.

Guerilla warfare can change who wins, but it won't stop you from losing. A war has more than two sides.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#123

Post by lern_too_spel » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:52 PM UTC

mondoshawan wrote: post #119

lern_too_spel wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing like that has ever happened to me. In fact, I have never been in a situation where I would have been better off with a gun on me. Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often.

Correlation is not causation.

Who said it was?

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#124

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:52 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #99

carsongross wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that fending off a modern army with rifles is a pipe dream Tell that to the mujahideen...

This has been perhaps the most interesting thing, from a military tactics view, of the latest wars. That a moderately armed insurgency can hold against a very sophisticated military. The limits of smart weapons. In many ways it bolsters the argument that the 2nd amendment, as a bulwark against the emergence of a federal police state, is not actually outdated.

From a capabilities standpoint, the latest wars have the very sophisticated armies showing an awful lot of self restraint.

Another way of putting it is that the longevity of the insurgents probably says more about the mission that was handed to the military than it does about the ability of the military to deal with the tactics.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#125

Post by Buge » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #64

higherpurpose wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and I think Cisco, for example, is almost as bad as IBM was then, by being the architects of the "lawful intercept" [1] (backdoor [2]) protocol for their routers in China and elsewhere, which then facilitates the government's catching, torturing or killing of the dissidents. At the very least Cisco is as bad as the Hacking Team. [1] - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3924 [2] - https://www.blackhat.com/present…

No. It's important to separate technology creators and users. Physicists should bear no blame for the use of atomic weapons. Cisco, IBM and others are, likewise, just technology providers. Google, OTOH, actively uses its technology.

If Cisco has people onsite helping to install their products and providing support for China's operations, and takes feature suggestions and implements stuff specifically to help China that's more than simply being a technology provider.

Yes Google is intentionally using its technology to serve ads, but it's not intentionally using its technology to give information to the NSA, and is in fact trying to get everything encrypted to specifically stop the NSA.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#126

Post by caseysoftware » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:56 PM UTC

doomrobo wrote: post #100

caseysoftware wrote: post #6

And it's the same line of reasoning that opposes a central gun registry.

The open question that the article didn't touch upon (probably because it's much more complicated) is where to draw the line between what is and isn't the government's business. There are many who don't buy into the "nothing to hide" argument and would nonetheless advocate for the use of a central gun registry. It's not mutually exclusive, it's just a matter of where a person draws their line of privacy. I'd imagine…

That's one of many "it doesn't apply to me, so it doesn't matter" scenarios.

As the OPM "hack" has demonstrated, the government has no interest and little culpability in protecting the vital and dangerous information it has collected. If it shows this much disregard for the important information, how much less protection will they apply to the unimportant things?

* I hate calling it a "hack" since it's been determined that OPM gave them access to everything. I covered that over three weeks ago too: http://caseysoftware.com/blog/opm-background-check-hack-a-di...

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#127

Post by pkaeding » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:57 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #104

67726e wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or when someone breaks into your apartment and the police have an average response time of, what, 10 minutes or so? How about when you pull over to assist a crashed motorcyclist and it turns out he's a DUI-case and attempts to car-jack you? How about when you see someone waltz into your neighbors backyard and kick in the door? All things that have happened to either myself, or a coworker in the past year. Is it unrea…

Nothing like that has ever happened to me. In fact, I have never been in a situation where I would have been better off with a gun on me. Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often.

I'd be careful implying causation here. Another way to look at it is that people who often find themselves in dangerous situations feel the need to have guns to protect themselves. When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound so 'funny'.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#128

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

glesica wrote: post #111

lookbothways wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, if there ever was an instance of alienating a sympathetic audience, this would be it. How does one take a golden argument like "privacy is an inalienable right," turn it into a tired "you should be ashamed for being white, check your privilege shitlord" flamebait, and still get taken seriously?

> you should be ashamed for being white, check your privilege shitlord You had to work pretty damn hard to get this out of that quote. His point was that a lot of people who say they (and by extension society, this part is important) don't need privacy probably don't need privacy because their privilege protects them. So then the goal has to be to convince them that their privileged position makes them a special case…

[deleted]

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#129

Post by reagency » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 6:00 PM UTC

PavlovsCat wrote: post #57

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Post-privilege is impossible by definition in any society where scarcity exists. Even if various identities are all elevated to an equal level of acceptance, the term "privilege" will simply be shifted to more nebulous concepts. Finally, the conclusion that reaching post-privilege will result in a feasible post-privacy does not follow at all. What, is the implication here that white men "on stages" have nothing to hi…

> Even if various identities are all elevated to an equal level of acceptance, the term "privilege" will simply be shifted to more nebulous concepts. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. > Finally, the conclusion that reaching post-privilege will result in a feasible post-privacy does not follow at all. From the claim that a post-privacy society would have to be post-privilege does not follow that all post pri…

This comment is thoughtful, polite, and not redundant. It should not be downgrayed

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#130

Post by pekk » Sat, Jul 11, 2015, 6:02 PM UTC

crazy1van wrote: post #73

Squarel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing different opinions to me". Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married for example) this is not persecuting a group. To imply so is disingenuous.

I've both bought a gun and gotten married. It definitely took much more government paperwork and time to buy the gun. However, I'm not sure the bureaucracy surrounding either really comes close to "persecution".

Buying a gun really only requires filling out a tiny slip, it took me less than 5 minutes and was not invasive in the least. Maybe this varies between states.