Surveillance - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

Forums › Off topic › Surveillance - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

Dynamic

4015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1851

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#209156 15-Mar-2017 06:42

The argument If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear came up in a recent forum discussion around smart home equipment being used to spy on people.

I came across this article linked here this morning which, while not directly related to indiscriminate government surveillance, gives an example of how a completely innocent party's life has been left in tatters (along with members of his extended family) due to law enforcement officials 'getting it wrong' in one form or another.

While he ultimately received some compensation, no payout can begin to compensate for lost years of your life or the ongoing mental health issues that linger for years or a lifetime after the fact.

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 7

2487 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1461
Inactive user

#1736635 15-Mar-2017 07:20

Realistically, this isn't related to surveillance at all. This is more about the need for better checking of peoples work before royally screwing someone.
In this case, more indiscriminate government surveillance may have been beneficial.

Don't get me wrong, I think governments need to be restricted in what they can do to the average person without proper cause. I think our current laws are fairly well balanced.

In all honesty, I don't think governments are the problem (with some obvious exceptions). People are currently freely giving up their privacy in order to gain access to "services" online. By the time they realise their privacy is important, it'll be way too late.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1736641 15-Mar-2017 07:49

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has always been bollocks. There's plenty of info out there about the damages of surveillance - to individuals society and democracy, and privacy ≠ hiding illegal activity - for example bathrooms.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1736644 15-Mar-2017 07:58

My thoughts are along similar lines to @andrewNZ. Coming from my past life in law enforcement; if the average NZ punter actually knew what went on after dark they would lock themselves in a well stocked safe room and never come out. Sitting at home in their comfy houses all tucked up nice and tight choosing their next binge series to watch, oblivious to the different world outside that only some get to truly see and experience, some sadly as victims. I see it as a necessity in this era however there needs to be checks, balances, and controls on what or who can act on that information.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Dynamic

4015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1851

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1736645 15-Mar-2017 08:01

andrewNZ: In all honesty, I don't think governments are the problem (with some obvious exceptions). People are currently freely giving up their privacy in order to gain access to "services" online. By the time they realise their privacy is important, it'll be way too late.

I agree with you. We've already traded away a lot of our privacy for convenience.

Do you remember the story of a US chain store working out a teenage girl was pregnant before her father knew?

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1736646 15-Mar-2017 08:02

PaulBags: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" has always been bollocks. There's plenty of info out there about the damages of surveillance - to individuals society and democracy, and privacy ≠ hiding illegal activity - for example bathrooms.

Citation needed.

As always this is a one sided argument. How much has been prevented by effective use of surveillance and measured actions taken responsibly? This is rarely published and if it is it's not 'sensationalist' enough to be on the front page.

Not saying I like it, I just think it's inevitable and in the vast majority of cases necessarily (nothings perfect)

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1736648 15-Mar-2017 08:48

Dynamic:

The argument If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear came up in a recent forum discussion around smart home equipment being used to spy on people.

I came across the article linked below this morning which, while not directly related to indiscriminate government surveillance, gives an example of how a completely innocent party's life has been left in tatters (along with members of his extended family) due to law enforcement officials 'getting it wrong' in one form or another.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewchampion/this-mans-life-was-destroyed-by-a-police-typo?utm_term=.dkKxovBoEg#.xgMq0Pe0oB and https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3062341/man-wrongly-accused-paedophile-police-typo-nigel-lang/

While he ultimately received some compensation, no payout can begin to compensate for lost years of your life or the ongoing mental health issues that linger for years or a lifetime after the fact.

True. It would be more correct to say "You have nothing to fear as long as THEY think you're doing nothing wrong."

What you think about what you're doing won't matter even a tiny bit once the big machine starts rolling over you.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#1736658 15-Mar-2017 09:18

I wasn't trying to say there's zero case for surveillance ever, I was responding to the common attitude that all surveillance is justified because people shouldn't fear it (the other 'one sided argument') - also pointing out fear isn't really the point, privacy is.

The benefits and damages can be weighed and considered, to be honest that's beyond what I can be bothered with on a cellphone while bussing to work.

But for your consideration: speed cameras, traffic cams, warrented targeted surveillance = acceptable. Mass surveillance (say tracking all vehicles by traffic cam, recording all stops and associations), China, North Korea, arguably Syria = unacceptable.

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3640 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1969

Lifetime subscriber

#1736662 15-Mar-2017 09:28

"I don't care what the world knows about me so long as my mother never finds out."

- Ashleigh Brilliant

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!

muppet

2642 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1660

Trusted

#1736667 15-Mar-2017 09:42

"There are at least four good reasons to reject this argument solidly and uncompromisingly: The rules may change, it’s not you who determine if you’re guilty, laws must be broken for society to progress, and privacy is a basic human need."

- Debunking The Dangerous "If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear"

Dynamic

4015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1851

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1736685 15-Mar-2017 10:20

muppet: ...laws must be broken for society to progress...

Thanks for that link - it added some interesting additional thoughts. And the bit I've quoted above was not something I have thought about before.

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1736690 15-Mar-2017 10:43

It is called civil disobedience - something I am a great believer in. Great people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King have used it very effectively to overcome prejudice and social injustice.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1736695 15-Mar-2017 10:52

Rikkitic:

It is called civil disobedience - something I am a great believer in. Great people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King have used it very effectively to overcome prejudice and social injustice.

Civil disobedience to what level?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1736700 15-Mar-2017 10:57

scuwp:

My thoughts are along similar lines to @andrewNZ. Coming from my past life in law enforcement; if the average NZ punter actually knew what went on after dark they would lock themselves in a well stocked safe room and never come out. Sitting at home in their comfy houses all tucked up nice and tight choosing their next binge series to watch, oblivious to the different world outside that only some get to truly see and experience, some sadly as victims. I see it as a necessity in this era however there needs to be checks, balances, and controls on what or who can act on that information.

Straight from the tyrant's handbook: Make people afraid so they will beg for something to feel safe. Works for snake-oil salesman, as well.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1736702 15-Mar-2017 10:59

MikeB4:

Rikkitic:

It is called civil disobedience - something I am a great believer in. Great people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King have used it very effectively to overcome prejudice and social injustice.

Civil disobedience to what level?

To the level that achieves the purpose. By definition civil disobedience is non-violent. Anything else goes.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3817

#1736712 15-Mar-2017 11:14

I have nothing to hide as far as I know but I have three basic concerns: -

1) I'm entitled to privacy;

2) Potential for abuse of surveillance by corrupt individual officers of whatever agency;

3) Governments can become untrustworthy/corrupt etc. The more barriers in place the better.

For that reason I think the threshold should be high. That said it's not something I ever worry about. I don't even think of the subject unless prompted by an article or thread.

I am the biggest threat to my own happiness, well-being, safety and solvency.

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 7