I suppose I could've put this in DirtyGreek's "discussing eavesdropping to be made illegal" thread, but I thought that this may have warranted its own seperate thread.

Point is, I'm sure you've all heard the saying "if you're innocent, you've got nothing to hide." It applies to security and surveillance in general, the idea being that if you haven't done anything that is wrong, then you have no reason to fear or resist surveillance and security measures. My question to Soap Box is, is there some merit to this line of thinking? What are some of the arguments in favor of this mentality, and what are the arguments that are against it?

I can see the logic in that statement, honestly. If you have never done or currently are not doing anything wrong ("wrong" meaning that you have not violated any of the rules or laws that are established for a particular area, say, a country), then when you get to a security checkpoint or get subjected to a background check you really have no reaspon to resist or refuse. Such measures, if implemented in daily life, could be an inconvenience at times, sure enough, but if you, as a law-abiding citizen, are doing everything that you are suppose to be doing, then what reason do you have to resist a little bit of scrutiny?

However, do not mistake my appreciation of the logic as support for such a policy. There are things about my life that I simply do not wish to share, even though they are perfectly legal. So one argument against the "only the guilty have something to hide" line of thought is privacy. But isn't that more of an emotional plea rather than a logical argument? Is there a consistent, logical argument against such a high level of surveillance? And, is privacy really a right that is held by all or is our privacy simply a cultural thing?

Go!

3/24/2006 7:32:55 PM

The right to privacy has been upheld by the supreme court and serves as, among other things, the underpinning of Roe v Wade. This right is protected except for when personal privacy infringes on public safety. Distinguishing that fuzzy line is where congress and the courts come into play. Legislatures frequently attempt to protect the public at the expense of personal privacy and vice versa. The laws they write are frequently struck down in court based on interpreting a constitution that is decidedly ambiguous on the issue.

3/24/2006 7:44:06 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974 (with additional act passed in 1988)

No need to even post a substantiated argument.

3/24/2006 8:54:02 PM

Well, the problem I see most is that the attitude "Only the guilty have something to hide" ignores the possibility that the status quo is wrong.

Throughout our history, laws have changed to reflect "societal norms" and our view of justice. (abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, sodomy, etc.)

To assume that we, as a nation, are "done" repealing unjust laws, IOW, to assume that the way things are now are the way things should be, is unwise and likely incorrect.

Exactly how laws may change in future is unknown, and depending on your perspective, the changes should include different things. (I think marijuana, prostitution and gambling will eventually be legalized in many states in the future.....other people have different views…..)

Martin Luther King was investigated by the feds. The white racist g0vt at the time tried to stop/slow his efforts at justice.

Nixon called Tim Leary "the most dangerous man in America"

Myself, and countless other [more active] marijuana advocates (Tommy Chong, Dana Beal, Woody Harrelson, Willie Nelson, etc.) are certainly being investigated by the feds. Why? Because, as the law stands, what they are advocating is "wrong".

If g0vt is given unlimited power to surveil these and other advocates for various political positions, what chance do the advocates have to achieve success? At the very least, the unlimited g0vt surveillance might slow down the realization of what may be, at some time in the future, a radical departure from previous unjust legislation. Alarmist as it may sound, tyrannies will definitely protect their status quo, and if doing so includes "bullying" individuals and groups to prevent them from any success, despite the possibility that those individuals' and groups' political/social positions are "destined" to be realized as having been the "right" positions all along, then no political or social progress will ever be made, or at the very least, it will be greatly delayed.

All this aside, the g0vt simply has no business in the first place concerning themselves with the private sector's "secrets" and "plans". The g0vt is the servant of the private sector, not the boss or king.

3/24/2006 9:01:08 PM

i don't want anybody to see my invention that isn't patented yet. I MUST BE GUILTY!

i don't want anybody to see my wife in her underwear. I MUST BE GUILTY!

i don't people to come into my home uninvited. I MUST BE GUILTY!

i don't anyone to know that I play dungeons and dragons. I MUST BE GUILTY!

3/25/2006 1:32:25 AM

none of that has happened to me - I MUST BE INNOCENT!

3/25/2006 2:05:48 AM

Quote :

"i don't anyone to know that I play dungeons and dragons."

So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

3/25/2006 10:33:45 AM

Quote :

"Myself, and countless other [more active] marijuana advocates (Tommy Chong, Dana Beal, Woody Harrelson, Willie Nelson, etc.) are certainly being investigated by the feds. Why? Because, as the law stands, what they are advocating is "wrong"."

you a big fish now eh? I doubt the fbi is worried that much about a squirt like yourself.

3/25/2006 10:40:16 AM

Quote :

"other [more active] marijuana advocates"

(perhaps I should have used "popular", "well-known", or "accomplished" instead of "active".....)

I'm a mere blip on the radar........if that.....

3/25/2006 11:46:29 AM

the word active isn't the problem. Here's an example that will explain how it works.

myself, and countless other [more wealthy] college graduates have 12 cars in their garages.
!=
"countless other [more wealthy] college graduates have 12 cars in their garages."

3/25/2006 1:56:24 PM

They're investigating UC Santa Cruz's anti-military groups, too. I wouldn't be surprised if hempster has made a list or two.

3/25/2006 4:20:30 PM

did he use his credit card to buy tickets for V for Vendetta?

3/26/2006 1:29:13 AM

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

—Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt explaining why he wants to stick police cameras in peoples' homes


some stupid shit

3/26/2006 11:49:39 AM

Put specifically to the idea of domestic wiretapping, my opinion is such:

If the only crime you can be tried for is the one they are searching for (and murder), then I have no problem if the feds listen in on conversations and then delete the bastards right after they're useless.

They can hear me talk about whatever, so long as I'm only accountable for terrorism or murder.

3/26/2006 11:55:51 AM

^

3/26/2006 12:08:48 PM

they won't ignore other crimes if they have lawful access to the information right?

Isn't that the way it is when the cops have a warrant to search your house for murder evidence and find crack on your coffee table?

3/26/2006 8:14:59 PM

on one hand you're asking the government to provide for people

on the other you're asking them to back the fuck off



which is it?

3/26/2006 8:32:03 PM

providing for the people and pulling some nazi shit is totally different

3/27/2006 12:58:35 AM