Very timely words.
If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
211–220 of 321 posts
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well put. The Open Rights Group regularly do briefings on things like this and one of the "Responses you might get and how to counter them" arguments is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear That isn’t true. Surveillance has been used against journalists, whistleblowers and human rights activists. Most of us want to keep parts of our lives private." [0] I've had people use the naïve "nothing to fear…
If they have nothing to hide, ask them for nudes.
"If you have nothing to hide, exert this effort."
No thanks. Come take my clothes off, bring a camera. I'll charge my normal hourly rate and we'll both be upset about time wasted.
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal experiences in some of the cases you have mentioned. 2 times house break, both times I confronted the burglars with a kitchen knife and gave them an avenue to escape which they took. I would never want to kill someone because they tried take my property. It's just stuff and quite frankly I value human life much higher, even if it is the life of a criminal who is taking my things. The fact that there are s…
> The fact that there are so many of these situations points towards a different and bigger problem in society and I would much rather energy was spent on fixing them than treating symptoms with firearms. Of course there's a bigger problem. But I would much rather own a gun and actually be able to protect myself and my family, than refuse to have a gun on principle and just pray that one day I get to effect all of so…
More people are killed by family members with their own guns than by 'home invasion' murders in the US. Despite what the NRA propagandises, 'home invasion' murders are actually pretty rare.
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal experiences in some of the cases you have mentioned. 2 times house break, both times I confronted the burglars with a kitchen knife and gave them an avenue to escape which they took. I would never want to kill someone because they tried take my property. It's just stuff and quite frankly I value human life much higher, even if it is the life of a criminal who is taking my things. The fact that there are s…
Wait a minute, so you are ok with brandishing a knife, but not a gun? That is silly.
Not that I agree with the person you're replying to, but it makes some sense. (caveat: i'd never confront an intruder without my life or my families life in danger.)
Guns have hosts of failure modes, and require specialized knowledge on their operation to ensure safety. Guns can even fire accidentally, with an accidental discharge on dropping the firearm being a possibility on any gun without a firing pin block (which is practically any long gun, the kind you can buy at Walmart in some states, with no waiting period in some states). A poorly handled gun may shoot in a totally unpredictable trajectory, and a first time user would be unlikely to consider collateral damage. (Nursery behind the attacker?)
A knife mishandled usually leads to non-life-threatening self-injury. A knife can be dropped, but will only damage those around it that are wearing inappropriate footwear. A knife has very few mechanisms, and only has as many mechanical failure modes as there are gimmicks on the knife; with some having zero mechanical failure modes possible besides faults that are metallurgical in nature. A knife can be wielded poorly with zero training; a first time gun user may never find the safety without assistance, let alone loading and reloading. A knife results in very low collateral damage.
Basically : I'd rather put a limiter on a novice in combat than give him or her weapons in which they put themselves and their family in even greater danger by their own naivety. With proper training, a gun will be the best choice; my personal problem with that decision is that I've met very few properly trained gun enthusiasts that treat firearms with the respect they need to be handled with, and that's not to say I know very few of them.
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#215"When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing to write." - Edward Snowden
Well put. The Open Rights Group regularly do briefings on things like this and one of the "Responses you might get and how to counter them" arguments is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear That isn’t true. Surveillance has been used against journalists, whistleblowers and human rights activists. Most of us want to keep parts of our lives private." [0] I've had people use the naïve "nothing to fear…
Also point out that they break a couple of laws every day, just like the rest of us do here in America. The only thing that saves them, however temporarily, is that those laws don't "count."
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google CEO (at the time) Eric Schmidt: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid... Senator Trent Lott: "What are people worried about? What is the problem?" asked Lott, a former majority leader. "Are you doing something you're not supposed to?" http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/bell…
Schmidt wasn't making a strong argument against privacy, he was discussing the relationship between using an online search engine and privacy. He was asked People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be? And responded with your quote, and a bit more. The context is harder to ridicule: I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be…
The context is easier to ridicule. He says it in explicit terms: Don't search for something you wouldn't want authorities to know about because we just may hand it over to them.
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in this case it might be. In a society where no one owns guns, the chance that some intruder has a gun is near to null, so you don’t need a gun either.
Clearly a 5'1", 105lb woman has no need of a gun when a 6'4", 240lb man breaks into her home.
Strange then, that the people who most agitate for and carry guns are not short women.
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#218Sure, the Chinese have got the info, but could they sell it to American companies? Might a US employer be interested in that dataset? How much might they be willing to pay? Could I set up a Private Investigation firm and charge $10/file for access? Would an American pay to see their ex-husband/ex-wife's polygraph results? I could even take payment in Bitcoin. I think the television news emphasizes the possibility of…
I think the major security concern is over blackmail, considering the stolen data concerned people with US government security clearances.
Yes, blackmail is probably the primary concern. But anyone who has your SSN, DOB, employment history, and every address you've lived at... they can convince banks, cc companies, etc., that they are you, because those phone calls usually involve questions about where you've lived and worked.
Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#219Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
#220I like that the article mentioned the difference between privacy and secrecy. I've been struggling with that for a while. What is private is secret but what is secret (a secret recipe, for example) is not necessarily private. But in some cases, a secret can be considered private (a secret love affair, for example). I'm confused...