- Do you think the government is watching us more and reducing the amount over privacy we have?
- If so, do you think this is for the greater good?
- Do you think that technology plays a role in this?
Privacy
- Thread starter bacon
- Start date
Cameras only exist because idiots make them a necessity. If people didn't break silly laws, vandalise things for fun, or mug people to solve their financial problems, then there wouldn't be a need for cameras.
I do not think they are anything to do with the Government issuing a 1984 style dealie. They're a valid necessity in today's world - either that, or more police officers, patrolling every street. Who would pay for them? And would we not be seen even further as a "nanny state"?
I do not think they are anything to do with the Government issuing a 1984 style dealie. They're a valid necessity in today's world - either that, or more police officers, patrolling every street. Who would pay for them? And would we not be seen even further as a "nanny state"?
For my American perspective...
Do you think the government is watching us more and reducing the amount over privacy we have?
Yes. Datamining, warrantless wiretapping, and screening texts/e-mail are all examples of the US government violating their citizen's privacy.
Do you think it's for the greater good?
Personally? No. But I do see the merit in the argument for it. They'd argue it in one way: it generates a greater degree of security. If you can catch a threat and prevent actuated harm, that justifies the subversion of the law of the land. Ultimately, from a hobbesian standpoint, the only thing a government need secure is the right to self-preservation. All other rights come second to it as a luxury.
So yeah, I get the argument. But I don't buy it. I believe there are other values that come into play to the same degree, if not in a greater magnitude, than that of security. I believe that if you continue with these intrusions of privacy, you violate the fourth amendment (again, my US perspective). I consider all searches unreasonable without a warrant, but I've been shot down in my opinion quite a few times by the courts. My view? If you've reason enough to search a person, you've reason enough to get a warrant. Having a hunch or a hunch based on circumstantial evidence is not enough.
Why do I hold this view? Because in the US we've the presumption of innocence. We are innocent until proven guilty. If we allow for the intrusion of privacy for the sake of security, we have also forfeit our presumptive right. The burden of proof shouldn't be on us, that mantra, "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear." We are innocent until they find reason to suspect otherwise. Now I don't have things to worry about, (though I'm sure I'm on a watch-list by this point.) but I don't like the idea of the law of the land being subverted. The rhetoric goes to the effect that we need to secure our citizens from threats abroad and within through these intrusions of privacy. But the problem is that you're destroying what it even means to be a citizen if you go against the laws. (Though the courts disagree with me. Then again, I've lost a lot of faith in the courts lately, so what can I say? I'm glad I disagree.)
Do you think technology plays a role in this?
Absolutely.
Do you think the government is watching us more and reducing the amount over privacy we have?
Yes. Datamining, warrantless wiretapping, and screening texts/e-mail are all examples of the US government violating their citizen's privacy.
Do you think it's for the greater good?
Personally? No. But I do see the merit in the argument for it. They'd argue it in one way: it generates a greater degree of security. If you can catch a threat and prevent actuated harm, that justifies the subversion of the law of the land. Ultimately, from a hobbesian standpoint, the only thing a government need secure is the right to self-preservation. All other rights come second to it as a luxury.
So yeah, I get the argument. But I don't buy it. I believe there are other values that come into play to the same degree, if not in a greater magnitude, than that of security. I believe that if you continue with these intrusions of privacy, you violate the fourth amendment (again, my US perspective). I consider all searches unreasonable without a warrant, but I've been shot down in my opinion quite a few times by the courts. My view? If you've reason enough to search a person, you've reason enough to get a warrant. Having a hunch or a hunch based on circumstantial evidence is not enough.
Why do I hold this view? Because in the US we've the presumption of innocence. We are innocent until proven guilty. If we allow for the intrusion of privacy for the sake of security, we have also forfeit our presumptive right. The burden of proof shouldn't be on us, that mantra, "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear." We are innocent until they find reason to suspect otherwise. Now I don't have things to worry about, (though I'm sure I'm on a watch-list by this point.) but I don't like the idea of the law of the land being subverted. The rhetoric goes to the effect that we need to secure our citizens from threats abroad and within through these intrusions of privacy. But the problem is that you're destroying what it even means to be a citizen if you go against the laws. (Though the courts disagree with me. Then again, I've lost a lot of faith in the courts lately, so what can I say? I'm glad I disagree.)
Do you think technology plays a role in this?
Absolutely.
Cameras only have to be used because people make them have to be used.
If people weren't generally shitheads and did silly crimes (by which I mean things like mugging, littering, and shit like that, that generally just makes the neighborhood worse), we wouldnb't need cameras.
It is a case of "if you had nothing to hide there wouldn't be a problem". Don't try and shrug it off; if you had nothing to hide there would be no problem. Of course you might be hiding shyness. The totalitarian state shall shoot that shyness out of you and you shall burn.
If people weren't generally shitheads and did silly crimes (by which I mean things like mugging, littering, and shit like that, that generally just makes the neighborhood worse), we wouldnb't need cameras.
It is a case of "if you had nothing to hide there wouldn't be a problem". Don't try and shrug it off; if you had nothing to hide there would be no problem. Of course you might be hiding shyness. The totalitarian state shall shoot that shyness out of you and you shall burn.
Well, the State isn't always a responsible government that wouldn't do anything beyond the powers granted by their constitution.
How many times have seen that they keep people in secret facilities (jails, no, dungeons) or as non registered inmates in a federal o national prison?
How many times have found out some soldier (almost) killed a prisoner just because?
Isn't there governments that state decades later that what they did during some war was justified and deserves to give some good credit to their "heroes" even if that makes the afflicted people cry even louder because they still remember how they raped just about anything living thing there?
Didn't KGB just make people disappear for no apparent reason?
Now they even have some damn good cameras that can be well hidden if they care about that so we can just rely on their good judgment or believe they're doing some surveillance just because a crook is tormenting innocent people. Espionage hasn't disappear from the world, it's just more secretive than before.
Do you remember that in X Men comics and animated series Charles Xavier is a professor and is forced to live sitting in a wheel chair? He was persecuted as well as the rest of the mutants due to their powers. Well, we lack of magical or mutant powers but our ability to think and express our opinions are as dangerous as any fireball or thunderstorm. In one of the most recent animated series Xavier is able to walk once again thanks to some exoskeleton. Guess what, some guys invented a prototype that allows disabled people to walk once again. Hmm... How curious, sci fi gets even closer to reality than we first thought...
What I mean with this example is that we see what's happening but we're not putting our best effort to prevent that horrible future from happening at all. It seems the more we talk about it the more we get used to that kind of extremist actions just because of the benefits of technology and the foolish initiatives like making your small / average size company a green one. Yeah, right, but what about the big corporations and transnationals? Why just a couple of governments and their people demand them to respect their laws, initiatives and idiosyncrasy? Why do they waste resources and pollute our lands and even our air, the one we share with several other millions of people?
Sometimes I really believe our governments are just some puppets and the puppeteers are no one else but the mega corporations CEO's and owners.
How many times have seen that they keep people in secret facilities (jails, no, dungeons) or as non registered inmates in a federal o national prison?
How many times have found out some soldier (almost) killed a prisoner just because?
Isn't there governments that state decades later that what they did during some war was justified and deserves to give some good credit to their "heroes" even if that makes the afflicted people cry even louder because they still remember how they raped just about anything living thing there?
Didn't KGB just make people disappear for no apparent reason?
Now they even have some damn good cameras that can be well hidden if they care about that so we can just rely on their good judgment or believe they're doing some surveillance just because a crook is tormenting innocent people. Espionage hasn't disappear from the world, it's just more secretive than before.
Do you remember that in X Men comics and animated series Charles Xavier is a professor and is forced to live sitting in a wheel chair? He was persecuted as well as the rest of the mutants due to their powers. Well, we lack of magical or mutant powers but our ability to think and express our opinions are as dangerous as any fireball or thunderstorm. In one of the most recent animated series Xavier is able to walk once again thanks to some exoskeleton. Guess what, some guys invented a prototype that allows disabled people to walk once again. Hmm... How curious, sci fi gets even closer to reality than we first thought...
What I mean with this example is that we see what's happening but we're not putting our best effort to prevent that horrible future from happening at all. It seems the more we talk about it the more we get used to that kind of extremist actions just because of the benefits of technology and the foolish initiatives like making your small / average size company a green one. Yeah, right, but what about the big corporations and transnationals? Why just a couple of governments and their people demand them to respect their laws, initiatives and idiosyncrasy? Why do they waste resources and pollute our lands and even our air, the one we share with several other millions of people?
Sometimes I really believe our governments are just some puppets and the puppeteers are no one else but the mega corporations CEO's and owners.