A question about personal privacy and the government

[andino]

What do you guys say to people who tell you "If you ain't doing nothing wrong then you ain't got nothing to worry about" when talking about personal privacy and the government?

I had a long debate in my cyber security class the other day with a bunch of freepers that advocated the government spying on web sites and spy on citizens. Their biggest response was the ol cliche 'nothing wrong' line. I reminded them that it was the same argument that some of the Germans gave the Jews as they were rounding them up and sending them to the concentration camps.

But it really bothered me that people actually believe that it is OK for the government to keep tabs on what information we viewed.

How do you guys feel about it? And what is your response to the "If you ain't doing nothing wrong then you ain't got nothing to worry about" line?

[seabeyond]

1. cause sometimes i do something wrong

and it is still ok. i am just not perfect enough to follow all the rules. the anal where rule following, being sheep in my book, is who they are, like my oldest.........that works. but people like my youngest and i, you tell me not to step on grass, i may just put my toe on the grass.........couldnt stop myself if i tried. just who i am. dont know why. but at 42 have done pretty good, givin lots of love to lots of people, never purposely hurt another, better i can say than others.

just dont think i should be taken down, knee in back, arms yanked behind and handcuffed. go figure

[Dookus]

2. I ask them

if they're comfortable with Hillary Clinton having those same spying powers.

[Ignoramus]

10. Agreed

It's a rather basic idea that you should not be asked to trust the intentions of your employees in the government, with respect to significant issues. Sadly too few people seem to understand that concept, it seems to me.

Democracy is not simply, rule by good people.

It should be the duty of your representatives to be accountable to you and to be humble and ask for their decisions to be scrutinized.

Entrusting a representative with the the task of acting as an authority, is asking them to fulfill a role, it is not granting them personally, freedom to decide your fate. Defining the parameters of that role should involve safeguards to protect against the peculiarities of people tasked with fulfilling that role.

[Cerridwen]

3. Because the definition of what is "wrong" changes depending

on, everything; and usually has to do with who's in charge at the time.

Women wearing pants. Women with short hair. Women speaking in public, getting an education.

The speed limit. Inter-racial marriage. Same-sex marriage (wait for it, that'll become legal soon).

Paddling kids in school. Hugging kids in school. Helping kids in school, fer crissakes.

And not all of us can keep up on what's wrong from minute to minute. And what's wrong and/or illegal can be "fiddled" with if "those in charge" choose to do so. I'm thinking of planting drugs in this instance but I'm sure many people can come up with many more examples.

[bain_sidhe]

4. Who defines "wrong"?

That's my response, most of the time. Porn is legal for adults, but would you really want your boss knowing you view it? Medications for depression are entirely legal, but again, who has the right to know that you're taking it? Your boss? Your neighbors? Your ex-spouse in the middle of a custody battle? Being some religion other than Christian is not "wrong" - but it would certainly affect your chances for promotion in ashcroft's "justice" department, wouldn't it? How about that online order for a niftly little black leather corset and a whip? Who oughta know about that, hmm?

I'd venture to say that ALL of us do stuff that's perfectly legal, but is none of the government's business.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Do you really trust the government

not to take this information and skew it in such a way as to indict you for something you haven't done?

[Hamlette]

6. Why are they so restive to registering firearms? n/t

[guitar man]

7. I call bullshit

When they start that crap. The reason the Founding Fathers sought to deny government that power was because of the potential for abuse. They had been searched, assaulted, poked and prodded by the King's troops until they had enough. When government doesn't have power, it doesn't have power to abuse. They can take their "end justifies the means" bullshit and shove it! In a free society, the end must NEVER justify the means.

[Book Lover]

8. Because it is unnecessary

I just love how repukes pull the bullshit mantra, "Less government," but they never want to actually reduce government functions or authority. It is not a proper function of the federal, state or local government to gather information for analysis about how I go about my daily business. It spends scarce tax dollars and only satisfies the voyeuristic urge. If a crime has been committed, then go to a judge and have him/her authorize a tap. Otherwise get out of my life.

[rumguy]

9. It's about the presumption of innocence and the government respecting

it's citizens...

[Individualist]

11. I quote Martin Niemoller

a Lutheran minister who lived in Nazi Germany -

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me

[lapfog_1]

12. Basically

as things are now, and not likely to change soon,
EVERYONE is violating some law or another, just doing normal
things. It's intentional. If "they" take an interest in
you, then they can find something to make you into a criminal.
Keeps dissent to a minimum that way.

The more spying power they have, the easier to find MORE things
to charge you with when they decide that you are a danger to
their society.