Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy ...
FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy ...

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy ...

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. Edward Snowden, exiled American whistleblower (b. 1983). More homepage quotes

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (715 days ago)

Ed needs either a presidential pardon or enough caring Americans to put him on a presidential ballot and vote him into the Presidency.

ReplyVote up (135)down (74)
Original comment

Ed needs either a presidential pardon or enough caring Americans to put him on a presidential ballot and vote him into the Presidency.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (713 days ago)

That's all the US needs now is to vote in a known criminal that is considered by many to be treasonous.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

That's all the US needs now is to vote in a known criminal that is considered by many to be treasonous.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (712 days ago)

Labeling Snowden a criminal/traitor begs delusional/corrupt belief that contractors who design, build and service PRISM never make non-govermental self-rewarding use of PRISM, or that our government, which evidently can't prevent unauthorized access or abusive use by those authorized to PRISM, should be entrusted with ineffective superficial rubberstamp oversight of those with a demented lust for God-Like intrusion into the privacy of non-terrorist citizens.

ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment

Labeling Snowden a criminal/traitor begs delusional/corrupt belief that contractors who design, build and service PRISM never make non-govermental self-rewarding use of PRISM, or that our government, which evidently can't prevent unauthorized access or abusive use by those authorized to PRISM, should be entrusted with ineffective superficial rubberstamp oversight of those with a demented lust for God-Like intrusion into the privacy of non-terrorist citizens.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (712 days ago)

Failing to label Snowden a criminal is tantamount to giving him god-like powers by which he can divulge state secrets to all and sundry, including those who actively will use the information to attack innocent people. It's saying that anyone who works with any level of confidential data should be entitled to use their personal judgement and make such data publically available whether or not they understand the implications of doing so. It makes a move from allowing dubious government institutions the right to your personal data, to allowing anyone including terrorists the right to your personal data.

ReplyVote up (129)down (127)
Original comment

Failing to label Snowden a criminal is tantamount to giving him god-like powers by which he can divulge state secrets to all and sundry, including those who actively will use the information to attack innocent people. It's saying that anyone who works with any level of confidential data should be entitled to use their personal judgement and make such data publically available whether or not they understand the implications of doing so. It makes a move from allowing dubious government institutions the right to your personal data, to allowing anyone including terrorists the right to your personal data.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (712 days ago)

Firstly, while true that Snowden violated protocol of the organization he worked for, the stakes were abuse of a tool capable of ending our democracy or being chased by the most powerful nation on earth.

Secondly, it is rather presumptuous that the techniques Snowden used to infiltrate PRISM without detection are somehow only known to government officials employing others evidently more knowledgable about computers than the government officials who they report to. Anyone raised in the era of the 8080 Bug Book and a healthy curiosity for how computers work from the binary to the hexadecimal to the ascii to the BIOS to multiple OS's has already used Snowden's techniques and we number in the tens of thousands are are not goverment officials.

Thirdly, it is likely that tools as powerful as those developed by the NSA may someday actually prevent terrorism or help catch terrorist and may even have done so already. However, until the NSA provides case studies of thwarted acts of terrorism prior to Snowden's revelations or acts that could not be thwarted after Snowden's revelations, any assertion that Snowden compromised the effectiveness of efforts to protect against terrorism is unsupportable. The only evidence of harm from Snowden's revelations thus far are to the ego of power lusting government officials hell-bent on diverting vast tax resources to acquire an inadequately protected level of information access. The NSA has yet to be cost-justified and proven non-threatening to our democracy.

ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment

Firstly, while true that Snowden violated protocol of the organization he worked for, the stakes were abuse of a tool capable of ending our democracy or being chased by the most powerful nation on earth.

Secondly, it is rather presumptuous that the techniques Snowden used to infiltrate PRISM without detection are somehow only known to government officials employing others evidently more knowledgable about computers than the government officials who they report to. Anyone raised in the era of the 8080 Bug Book and a healthy curiosity for how computers work from the binary to the hexadecimal to the ascii to the BIOS to multiple OS's has already used Snowden's techniques and we number in the tens of thousands are are not goverment officials.

Thirdly, it is likely that tools as powerful as those developed by the NSA may someday actually prevent terrorism or help catch terrorist and may even have done so already. However, until the NSA provides case studies of thwarted acts of terrorism prior to Snowden's revelations or acts that could not be thwarted after Snowden's revelations, any assertion that Snowden compromised the effectiveness of efforts to protect against terrorism is unsupportable. The only evidence of harm from Snowden's revelations thus far are to the ego of power lusting government officials hell-bent on diverting vast tax resources to acquire an inadequately protected level of information access. The NSA has yet to be cost-justified and proven non-threatening to our democracy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (712 days ago)

It is likely that tools as powerful as those developed by the NSA may someday actually prevent terrorism or help catch terrorists and may even have done so already. Until the NSA provides evidence of cost-justification where espionage upon the citizenry prevents acts of terrorism on democratic jurisdictions prior to Snowden's revelations or was thwarted in doing so due to Snowden's revelations, any assertion that Snowden compromised the effectiveness of efforts to protect against terrorism is unsupportable. The only evidence of harm from Snowden's revelations thus far are to the ego of government officials bent on diverting vast tax resources to acquire an inadequately protected level of information access yet to be proven non-threatening to our democracy.

ReplyVote up (67)down (114)
Original comment

It is likely that tools as powerful as those developed by the NSA may someday actually prevent terrorism or help catch terrorists and may even have done so already. Until the NSA provides evidence of cost-justification where espionage upon the citizenry prevents acts of terrorism on democratic jurisdictions prior to Snowden's revelations or was thwarted in doing so due to Snowden's revelations, any assertion that Snowden compromised the effectiveness of efforts to protect against terrorism is unsupportable. The only evidence of harm from Snowden's revelations thus far are to the ego of government officials bent on diverting vast tax resources to acquire an inadequately protected level of information access yet to be proven non-threatening to our democracy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (713 days ago)

That's all the US needs now is to vote in a known criminal that is considered by many to be treasonous.

ReplyVote up (122)down (130)
Original comment

That's all the US needs now is to vote in a known criminal that is considered by many to be treasonous.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Superdave (690 days ago)
Latest comment:

This argument makes no sense it is two completely different scenaios not at all the same principle. besides we do not have free speech thses days far from it and most people wrongly seem to believe that is how it should be.

I have nothing to hide, so check up on me. I have plenty to say, so check up on me.

Telling me what I am allowed to say or not say is a totally different matter, you could compare it to telling me what I can do o not do which is a necessary evil ie the rule of law.

ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment
Latest comment:

This argument makes no sense it is two completely different scenaios not at all the same principle. besides we do not have free speech thses days far from it and most people wrongly seem to believe that is how it should be.

I have nothing to hide, so check up on me. I have plenty to say, so check up on me.

Telling me what I am allowed to say or not say is a totally different matter, you could compare it to telling me what I can do o not do which is a necessary evil ie the rule of law.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Clucks (712 days ago)

No Edward.

Saying you have nothing to hide so you don't need privacy is making a sacrifice for something good (making sure people with something to hide cannot hide it).

Saying you have nothing to say so you don't need freedom of speech is making a sacrifice for something bad (denying everyone freedom of speech).

A good person should never have any cause for trying to hide things.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

No Edward.

Saying you have nothing to hide so you don't need privacy is making a sacrifice for something good (making sure people with something to hide cannot hide it).

Saying you have nothing to say so you don't need freedom of speech is making a sacrifice for something bad (denying everyone freedom of speech).

A good person should never have any cause for trying to hide things.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (712 days ago)

Well articulated. However, good persons often have need to hide. The founding fathers of the United States had to hide from being shot at by Brittish loyalist whilst creating our nation. Leaving the judgement of who is good and who is bad in the hands of an unpoliced police state with a tool capable of coerpting our democracy is the antithesis of good.

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

Well articulated. However, good persons often have need to hide. The founding fathers of the United States had to hide from being shot at by Brittish loyalist whilst creating our nation. Leaving the judgement of who is good and who is bad in the hands of an unpoliced police state with a tool capable of coerpting our democracy is the antithesis of good.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (712 days ago)

Can you give a more contemporary example of how good people need to hide legal actions from the elected respresentatives in government?

ReplyVote up (133)down (58)
Original comment

Can you give a more contemporary example of how good people need to hide legal actions from the elected respresentatives in government?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (712 days ago)

Since journalists hiding their work to expose Nixon or Japanese hiding from being interred by FDR or civil rights activists hiding from elected KKK members might not be contemporary enough for you, here are some very contemporary examples. A recurring theme of the examples seems to be that at times, illegal acts can be more ethical than legal acts and at other times, legal acts can be be less ethical than illegal acts.

A link to a TED talk below outlines several instances of legal citizens of Muslim heritage and with below average IQs being set up by bored FBI agents (authorized by elected officials) to buy enough guns and explosives to become a fabricated, "terrorist threat". Efforts to justify the exhorbitantly high cost of creating and maintaining the surveillance state apparatus have stooped to fabricating threats as no real threat yet exists to provide justification that the apparatus has been justifiable. The forced hiding of religious affiliation and slump in demand for hijabs may be a a good by-product but causes hiding from representatives of elected officials nonetheless.

LINK

A private drone operator who exposed contamination of water from a swine rendering plant in South Dallas must hide from having his name published as legislators emlployed by those doing the contamination want to make such drone photos illegal.

LINK

Here's a third contemporary example where an elected official must hide from other elected officials and citizenry for doing something legal.

LINK

ReplyVote up (70)down (138)
Original comment

Since journalists hiding their work to expose Nixon or Japanese hiding from being interred by FDR or civil rights activists hiding from elected KKK members might not be contemporary enough for you, here are some very contemporary examples. A recurring theme of the examples seems to be that at times, illegal acts can be more ethical than legal acts and at other times, legal acts can be be less ethical than illegal acts.

A link to a TED talk below outlines several instances of legal citizens of Muslim heritage and with below average IQs being set up by bored FBI agents (authorized by elected officials) to buy enough guns and explosives to become a fabricated, "terrorist threat". Efforts to justify the exhorbitantly high cost of creating and maintaining the surveillance state apparatus have stooped to fabricating threats as no real threat yet exists to provide justification that the apparatus has been justifiable. The forced hiding of religious affiliation and slump in demand for hijabs may be a a good by-product but causes hiding from representatives of elected officials nonetheless.

LINK

A private drone operator who exposed contamination of water from a swine rendering plant in South Dallas must hide from having his name published as legislators emlployed by those doing the contamination want to make such drone photos illegal.

LINK

Here's a third contemporary example where an elected official must hide from other elected officials and citizenry for doing something legal.

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (712 days ago)

Your examples seem to be cases where government bodies have acted improperly or dishonestly, but not cases where legal actions were hidden, or cases where they would have benefitted if the legal actions had been hidden. If the FBI want to frame innocent Muslims, they clearly don't need a tonne of IT data to do that.

They may be tens, even hundreds of thousands of people with the technical skills or opportunity to access private data, but that doesn't avoid the fact that if one of them broadcasts such data to everyone else, the problem becomes even wider.

Personally though I have very little trust in governmental bodies, I have more trust in them being held to account (which basically is what seems to be happening in all the links you provided) than in the single lone-wolf 'whistle-blowers' that act unilaterally based on their own personal judgement and get away without punishment.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Your examples seem to be cases where government bodies have acted improperly or dishonestly, but not cases where legal actions were hidden, or cases where they would have benefitted if the legal actions had been hidden. If the FBI want to frame innocent Muslims, they clearly don't need a tonne of IT data to do that.

They may be tens, even hundreds of thousands of people with the technical skills or opportunity to access private data, but that doesn't avoid the fact that if one of them broadcasts such data to everyone else, the problem becomes even wider.

Personally though I have very little trust in governmental bodies, I have more trust in them being held to account (which basically is what seems to be happening in all the links you provided) than in the single lone-wolf 'whistle-blowers' that act unilaterally based on their own personal judgement and get away without punishment.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (711 days ago)

Government accountability requires informed citizenry. Paul Revere, Mark Felt, Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Serpico, Karen Silkwood, Mark Whitacre, Jeffrey Wigland, Coleen Rowley, Sherron Watkins and many lesser known others were lone wolves who strengthened our society. The world you wish for wouldn't be one you would be willing to live in due do your valuing rules protecting bureaucratic wrongdoers more than whistleblowers who expose them.

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

Government accountability requires informed citizenry. Paul Revere, Mark Felt, Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Serpico, Karen Silkwood, Mark Whitacre, Jeffrey Wigland, Coleen Rowley, Sherron Watkins and many lesser known others were lone wolves who strengthened our society. The world you wish for wouldn't be one you would be willing to live in due do your valuing rules protecting bureaucratic wrongdoers more than whistleblowers who expose them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (710 days ago)

That's scary if you think everything the government knows should be accessible to everyone, including intelligence, spying data, terrorism information etc etc. And if you don't think that, then you require the people working with that information to avoid divulging it to everyone based on their personal whims. Simple.

ReplyVote up (127)down (68)
Original comment

That's scary if you think everything the government knows should be accessible to everyone, including intelligence, spying data, terrorism information etc etc. And if you don't think that, then you require the people working with that information to avoid divulging it to everyone based on their personal whims. Simple.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (710 days ago)

Only those benefiting from the ineptitude and abuse of power that Snowden exposed could possibly want it hidden given how ineffective, excessively costly and risky to our democracy the capabilities are.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Only those benefiting from the ineptitude and abuse of power that Snowden exposed could possibly want it hidden given how ineffective, excessively costly and risky to our democracy the capabilities are.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (710 days ago)

Snowden didn't just reveal capabilities or abuse of power. He revealed a collosal amount of information that was found using it. That's a very different thing, isn't it? It's like combating organised credit card fraud by accessing the stolen PINs and giving them to everyone.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Snowden didn't just reveal capabilities or abuse of power. He revealed a collosal amount of information that was found using it. That's a very different thing, isn't it? It's like combating organised credit card fraud by accessing the stolen PINs and giving them to everyone.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (710 days ago)

Any lesser exposure from Snowden would equally meet your criteria for criminal/treasonous exposure. Any fealty subjected to the same abuse and inept oversight of PRISM would have made the same decision to adequately explain/educate an incredulous public lest the NSA's vision of a totalitarian mafia form unhindered. The congressional representatives subjected to NSA coersion to perpetuate NSA funding is just a tiny foretaste of how fake our democracy is until NSA capabilities are restrained to a level that Brittish voters approved last week.

While executives, researchers, et. al. in the communications industry were privy to evolving monitoring efforts by the NSA since inception, the general public remains largely incredulous that their supposed democracy could be orders of magnitude worse than Hitler's Gestapo or the USSR's Ministry of State Security at monitoring private lives without the majority of Congress even being aware, despite what Snowden revealed.

ReplyVote up (100)down (98)
Original comment

Any lesser exposure from Snowden would equally meet your criteria for criminal/treasonous exposure. Any fealty subjected to the same abuse and inept oversight of PRISM would have made the same decision to adequately explain/educate an incredulous public lest the NSA's vision of a totalitarian mafia form unhindered. The congressional representatives subjected to NSA coersion to perpetuate NSA funding is just a tiny foretaste of how fake our democracy is until NSA capabilities are restrained to a level that Brittish voters approved last week.

While executives, researchers, et. al. in the communications industry were privy to evolving monitoring efforts by the NSA since inception, the general public remains largely incredulous that their supposed democracy could be orders of magnitude worse than Hitler's Gestapo or the USSR's Ministry of State Security at monitoring private lives without the majority of Congress even being aware, despite what Snowden revealed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (709 days ago)

No I would be fine with undue capabilities being revealed, but not with confidential material discovered using them being revealed as well. You can't complain about institutions gathering data that you think should be kept private, by revealing that data to the public.

Anyway I think you let the cat out of the bag. You've already alluded to certain capabilities you have that could be considered clandestine, so I can understand why you'd want to keep certain activities hidden. Snowden may be a martyr to your cause, but not for the rest of us.

ReplyVote up (100)down (87)
Original comment

No I would be fine with undue capabilities being revealed, but not with confidential material discovered using them being revealed as well. You can't complain about institutions gathering data that you think should be kept private, by revealing that data to the public.

Anyway I think you let the cat out of the bag. You've already alluded to certain capabilities you have that could be considered clandestine, so I can understand why you'd want to keep certain activities hidden. Snowden may be a martyr to your cause, but not for the rest of us.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (708 days ago)

After searching, I found Snowden revealed evidence the NSA spies on foreign leaders and network administrators. I respect your position that such revelations constitute treason in violating clandestine efforts of our government that are valuable for public defense. I also agree that rewarding Snowden with a pardon for such an offense sends the wrong message to those hired to support such clandestine efforts.

The inept prevention of unauthorized access by government officials unwilling to accept/appreciate their lack of comprension of the complexities that permit unauthorized access to the god-like power they commissioned by both those with greater expertise to build and run it and foreign nation-states bent on knowing what we're up to continues to pose a grave threat to the perpetuation of our democracy. Exposure of that ineptitude along with exposure of abuses warrants a pardon for Snowden in my opinion.

ReplyVote up (101)down (56)
Original comment

After searching, I found Snowden revealed evidence the NSA spies on foreign leaders and network administrators. I respect your position that such revelations constitute treason in violating clandestine efforts of our government that are valuable for public defense. I also agree that rewarding Snowden with a pardon for such an offense sends the wrong message to those hired to support such clandestine efforts.

The inept prevention of unauthorized access by government officials unwilling to accept/appreciate their lack of comprension of the complexities that permit unauthorized access to the god-like power they commissioned by both those with greater expertise to build and run it and foreign nation-states bent on knowing what we're up to continues to pose a grave threat to the perpetuation of our democracy. Exposure of that ineptitude along with exposure of abuses warrants a pardon for Snowden in my opinion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (708 days ago)

Your implication that clandestine actions are illegal is a false premise. The fact that legal actions may be clandestine from our own government has repeatedly been proven with the examples I provided to benefit our society. The fact that the NSA now has the power to unearth all clandestine behavior and a history of abusing such power seems to be one you are incapable of comprehending the evil of.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

Your implication that clandestine actions are illegal is a false premise. The fact that legal actions may be clandestine from our own government has repeatedly been proven with the examples I provided to benefit our society. The fact that the NSA now has the power to unearth all clandestine behavior and a history of abusing such power seems to be one you are incapable of comprehending the evil of.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Maxwell1956 Maxwell1956 (715 days ago)

G-d bless Ed.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

G-d bless Ed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The Voice of Reason (707 days ago)

No, Mr Snowden, it's not. It's not even close. But you wouldn't understand logic, because you are a traitor who betrayed your country. You are a turncoat, a Quisling. You are part of the very reason that government agencies need to be able to track our emails and web views. You, Mr Snowden, are no better than the terrorists the civilised world is fighting, so please keep your fatuous, unintelligent, rabble rousing and illogical rantings to yourself and your friends in ISIS.

ReplyVote up (79)down (120)
Original comment

No, Mr Snowden, it's not. It's not even close. But you wouldn't understand logic, because you are a traitor who betrayed your country. You are a turncoat, a Quisling. You are part of the very reason that government agencies need to be able to track our emails and web views. You, Mr Snowden, are no better than the terrorists the civilised world is fighting, so please keep your fatuous, unintelligent, rabble rousing and illogical rantings to yourself and your friends in ISIS.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Blue Planet II - Trailer 2
Blue Planet II - Trailer 2
Harvey Weinstein body language
Harvey Weinstein body language
Ane Brun - Halo (Beyonce cover)
Ane Brun - Halo (Beyonce cover)
Raccoon's once-in-a-lifetime experience
Raccoon's once-in-a-lifetime experience
I wanted to do something inspirational for my children
I wanted to do something inspirational for my children