Would you like to save this Lemmy post of a Tumblr post of a Reddit post that has been cross-posted on Lemmy to your Pinterest board?

I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgements and intentions are. 

Gold!

I'm not concerned with the people who keep their blinds closed. I'm concerned with the people who want to peek in windows.

There is no proof that Goebbels actually said this

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear-a-line-used-by-joseph

In the early 2010s, If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear had already been resurfacing as a common thought-stopping cliché here in the states, since SCOTUS had been adding carve-outs by the dozens to the fourth amendment to the Constitution to the United States (the one about protections from unreasonable searches and seizures). At first, if you didn't speak english, or are within 100 miles of a US border or coast (that's most of the US), the police got free probable cause. Eventually SCOTUS ruled that if you were searched illegally and evidence for a crime was found, that evidence could not be suppressed if the crime was significant enough (e.g. ~~the clothes of a missing child~~ no wait, simple drug possession was enough.)

We were already aware of the FISC, FBI National Security Letters (the origins of the NSL canary statements) and the disposition matrix, by which even US citizens could be sentenced to execution by secret trial; the right to face one's accuser was long forfeit.

But then, it was also a period in which US citizens averaged about three crimes a day, mostly violations of the CFAA (which Reagan signed into law after watching Wargames 1983. Violation of the TOS of a website was a federal felony, which meant every tween that got a ~~Facebook~~ Friendster or Myspace account was committing a crime that could be sentenced up to 25 years (what is the upper limit for murder one in some states). It wasn't enforced... unless some official needed you to go away, say because he wanted your wife, or your property, or for you to shut up about his crimes.

And this is one example, and why telephone encryption is such a problem. Today, it's illegal in most states for law enforcement to search your phone once you're in custody without a warrant. They do anyway, and might or might not be able to crack the encryption with current tech (it's an ongoing race between exploits and fixes). If they find something worth prosecuting, or assets worth seizing or extorting you over, or if they just don't like you, then yes, expect to lose all your valuable property and assets, and become their informant. Sexual favors may also be necessary if you're attractive.

And that's why we need privacy, even as SCOTUS continues to strip it away from us.

In the 2020s, though, it's all the other technologies: IMSI spoofing, camera drones, ALPRs, Facial Recognition (which is a good way to get falsely convicted), Ring doorbell camera botnets, reverse warrants based on location or websearches, and so on. Big Brother is left holding the beer of IRL 2024.

GNU Terry Pratchett

Privacy and security are synonymous, especially on the internet. Already independent of the fact that certain companies make money with your data for spurious purposes, too often without control and necessary protection.

If they really think there's no reason to hide anything, why are they prosecuting Snowden for exposing something that was hidden?

Before having surveillance on people, they should have it on themselves.

Imagine how many corruption cases could have been prevented if the government was publicly monitored, with live streams from all offices, like a "big brother" show set up in the white house with live recordings of all calls and communications, so the voters can judge by themselves and monitor if the person they employed as the servant for the country is doing its job.

Goebbels is not the first person to say this. An earlier quote comes from Upton Sinclair in 1918:

Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends—people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.’

Let's be clear: the right to privacy is not a fascist dogma.

Downvoted. Please dont post images of text. Blind people cannot read it.

Type the text next time.

I think what Snowden did was fundamentally good.

My only problem is that he could have chosen to violate the bad law in the way King and others have violated bad laws in an effort to shed light on their badness: break the bad law in the open where everyone can see, then get arrested, then put the bad law and the system behind it on trial.

By running away, he's given the people who are doing bad things a line of attack against him. It's bullshit, and doesn't change the fact that widespread warrantless surveillance is wrong. But some people will take the attacks against Snowden seriously. If he had turned himself in and gone to trial, that line of attack would be gone.

Lack of dialectical materialism.

"Let the good guys see your messages" erases the dialectical materialism of the situation. All guys are guys looking out for their own class interests.

So if you let the Powers That Be surveil you, you have nothing to fear if you happen to be their friend. If they dislike you, you surely have something to fear.

Oh Eddy…