(no subject)

[mangosteen]

Every now and then, when talk of some new method of surveillance of the populace comes down the pike, I inevitably get into a discussion with someone where they say "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, so you have nothing to worried about." Being an "I like my civil liberties" kind of guy, I usually come up with some witty and vaguely indignant response.

I used to use the Pastor Niemoller "First they came for...." quote, but it's too long, somewhat preachy, and too far departed from people's memories to make an impression.

Lately, I've started by saying "Really now?", and the proceeded to ask increasingly personal questions of the person until they say "It's none of your business!", and let them figure out the rest. Useful and effective, but a bit confrontational.

So, I put the following to the assembled:

Query: If you're so inclined in the first place, how do you argue against the point of "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, so you have nothing to worry about."?

Comments

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Would you want the cops to search your house every night just in case you had drugs? How about your purse? Body cavities? Read your diary?

What about having them watch you have sex with your spouse? You're not doing anything wrong, right? So why should you care what they see?

I can have things to hide because they are private or unpopular, without being criminal. I don't want my life pawed over and judged by strangers.

And its far too easy to use that as a tactic of intimidation to increase power way beyond the specific emergency, to make people humiliated and afraid. That's a big part of why restrictions on search and seizure was one of the founding father's most pressing concerns when they wrote the Bill of Rights -- because the British did it to the colonists. They were told it was for their own good, too.

Mer

[veek.livejournal.com]

I usually answer, pretty unimaginatively, to the effect of the following: There are certain things about my life that are none of your business. Likewise, they are none of our government's business. If you've got no concept of what I am talking about, go read some Orwell.

[sunspiral.livejournal.com]

One might point out the specific history of (particularly Republican) mid to late 20th century presidential regimes using investigation into personal matters political, sexual, financial and medical as a method of intimidation. One might also question why the administration that seems to be more obsessed with secrecy than any before in this country's history, is so intent on removing the right of privacy from its citizens. And one might reply to their question with the question of, "What do you think Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams would say about all of this?"

[pseydtonne.livejournal.com]

My thoughts begin with the idea that we have no idea what will be done with these laws. When the RICO statutes were developed, the idea was going after mobsters. Now RICO laws get used to tie drug users to drug dealers, repossess entire neighborhoods, and blah blah.

I figure the lack of focus for this new department (it's going to spy on everyone all the time... and then what? Turn entire cities into prisons?) will be its undoing. However, my long-term thinking may not be enough for y'all.

A couple of good things about the present stack of silly plans the Bush's Jr administration have:

1. They will be overwhelmed and thus have no way to wade through their evidence. The CIA often only gets to 20% of the data they gather, and they aren't gathering anywhere near as much. When they want to bust somebody for a new, fictional crime, they'll have to figure out who belongs to which billions of receipts;
2. The backers of the GOP (votewise, not moneywise) are conservatives. These people frown on lots of things, biggest of which is any growth in federal government and the trespass upon states' rights. If these people decide they don't want bar codes in their bodies, you can bet they'll organize the bar code people back out of office. For people that refer to the Book of Revelations the way most of us would use the phone book, the desire for a holy war may not be as high as the desire to be left alone.

I'd like to think this will get too annoying for everyone involved. The people working for Bush's Jr can palm any bad idea onto him and he'll get it turned into law. "How about mandatory gun possession and then... registration of all textbooks as potential terrorist contraband?" Then again, they can't be that dim. (Can they?)

-too ill to figure much out today, Dante

Are you now, or have you ever, had an informed opinion?

[marmota.livejournal.com]

"It's too bad that "nothing wrong" is so context-dependent.".

Perhaps I'd ask if they think buying alcoholic beverages is acceptable? birth control? prescribed antidepressants? How about something less obvious, such as just a lot of rolaids and tums. All of these are easily tracked with credit cards and/or "coupon cards". Then ask if they would mind being presented with a list of such at a job interview and being asked to "explain it"... "Oh, I see by your purchase records you have an upset stomach. Do you deal well with stress?". Or asked at a school entrance interview if their "promiscuity" might detract from their studies. Or, worst of all, when registering to vote. "I see you purchase two cases of beer a week, Mr. Smith. The Informed Voter Statute prohibits us from registering alcoholics.". Hm, then again, Carrie Nation is even further off the radar. Scratch that.

How about context over time? Have you had an abortion? Gender change? Come out? Attended sociopolitical rallies of any sort? What if there was a cultural backlash against these and other causes, if perhaps they even became illegal? "Nothing wrong" now could get you arrested, beaten up, blacklisted, even killed later.
(Yes, I know all of those can get you all of the above even now. That's why I used them as examples.)

But then, Joe McCarthy is almost as far off the radar now as Martin Niemoller, isn't he?