Freedom vs Security

[Endus]

To me, it depends on what we're talking about.

Private phone calls or e-mails between private individuals? The government can get a warrant, or it can piss right off. A warrant requires they show reasonable cause to suspect I've done something wrong, first.

However, when it comes to greater Internet behaviour, like participation in online forums and the like, you've breached privacy, by posting in public. Same goes for Facebook and Twitter and whatnot. That the government can connect your online public activity with your real self is not, IMO, something covered by privacy laws. The only cases where it becomes an issue are authoritarian countries, like Iran, where these services are often the only means for the public to organize dissent, relying on that anonymity. But really, if I think this ceased to be protected, nobody would make the mistake of doing so online, any more. And there would be means to have private-access sites that effectively let similar-minded people discuss things in private, and since they aren't public-access, this principle wouldn't apply (I'm only applying it to public-access services like Twitter and web forums like this one).

[Damajin]

Everything I think or say is considered private until I personally deem it otherwise, ergo we have the synergy between freedom and security and not them existing as essential foes. The government has decided that in order to preserve its' own security that it has to limit my freedom, conversational and otherwise in order to 'protect the nation' which they suggest is protecting the citizens but is just self preservation at its' core. A country that trusted its' citizens enough not to spy on them aggressively and relentlessly would be the most amazing place to live indeed.

As to what do I have to hide? Everything.

[shadowmouse]

What is the reason for needing secure communication if you A) Aren't doing anything illegal, and B) Don't really have anything to hide from non-criminal entities?

Because those lines are basic McCarthyism. It should work like Godwin's Law, as soon as those words are uttered, the premise they were defending should be relegated to oblivion. It is not for the government to ask what I fear to show, it is for the government to show they have a need to know. This is generally expressed in the following form:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[chazus]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess the thing is (and this is awful to say) but any laws or constitutional aspects when it comes to that, is bullshit. I already have no reason to believe the government will uphold those tenets, so I guess I don't worry over it. I assume my privacy is already breached, and its just a matter of how much I worry/act over it.

[Grishnaar]

If we're talking on the phone and I tell you I bought a blue shirt.

If I don't want anybody else to know that besides you, it is my right to do so. Because the words were/are mine, if you get what I mean.

NOONE should know that unless I want it to (or if the other side tells).

It is the right for privacy, tht's why.

You don't think it's needed? Perfecty fine. Be transparent. But make sure we allow privacy for those who want it.

[Deleted]

Well the people should be able to keep the government in check so I think it has to be transparent and ultimately answer to the people. If the government has too much control over the people and could get away with shady stuff, its how dictatorships are born.

As for the "if you have nothing to hide.." BS, well I have tons of things to hide, doesnt mean its illegal or even somehow bad, information is the most valuable currency there is and I guess Im a capitalist.

[shadowmouse]

I already have no reason to believe the government will uphold those tenets, so I guess I don't worry over it. I assume my privacy is already breached, and its just a matter of how much I worry/act over it.

As I recall, your professional work has a degree of overlap with law, so I can understand why you would feel that way. It is quite probably true in many instances, and we have things like the Snowden leaks to prove both that it does happen and that we are given some pretty bald faced lies. For all of that, I think it is important to hold to the points we can, because if it is bad now (when there is at least a need to maintain appearances) then it will only get worse if there are no checks and balances at all.

[Endus]

Everything I think or say is considered private until I personally deem it otherwise

Err, what? Whether it's private or not has to do with the context in which you said it, not whether you want it to be public or not.

If you're in a public mall and confess to being a child molestor to a friend, and people overhear, and it gets out in the community, then you've got no call claiming your privacy was breached. It wasn't. You made a public confession. You not "deeming" it public is just flat-out incorrect.

[May90]

I think the government should be able to listen to private calls, but it should always notify the person of that explicitly and in advance. We have presumption of innocence, and the government can't suspect someone in a crime and take away their privacy without proving them guilty in a court. If they want to take away their privacy still, then the person should, at least, be aware of that - AND, if the person ends up innocent in the end, the government should give them monetary compensation.

[Azadina]

I have nothing to hide, but I won't accept being treated like a criminal, by having someone search my stuff. Authorities can go bother real criminals, not innocent citizens with that.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

The federal government betrayed the british crown.
The federal government systematically killed,displaced, and subjegated millions of Indians
The federal government put millions of Africans into slavery.
The federal government then threw away half a million soldiers' lives to get them out it.
The federal government stole land from Mexico, Canada, France, England etc.
The federal government dropped 2 Nuclear bombs killing a quarter million japanese.
The federal government instituted a draft to fight a war the american people did not support.
50,000 americans died.
300,000 Vietnamese died.
The federal government invaded Iraq and Afghanistan after Saudi Arabia destroyed the WTC.
The federal government held the world hostage with the help of USSR and enough Nuclear weapons to destroy 100 earths.
The list goes on.

You expect me to trust these people?


I trust the federal government when it is convenient for me to do so, or when they have me at gunpoint. Otherwise fuckoff.

[Damajin]

Err, what? Whether it's private or not has to do with the context in which you said it, not whether you want it to be public or not.

If you're in a public mall and confess to being a child molestor to a friend, and people overhear, and it gets out in the community, then you've got no call claiming your privacy was breached. It wasn't. You made a public confession. You not "deeming" it public is just flat-out incorrect.

While true, I meant mostly through communications like the phone or email. I'm fully aware that blurting out things in public more or less surrenders any pretext of privacy, which is why I don't personally say much at all in large, open public spaces. However if I was in a public space and yet off in an isolated area with someone having a conversation and someone was trying to eavesdrop then I'd certainly get on their case for being both rude and attempting to invade my privacy.

[Logwyn]

The federal government betrayed the British crown.
The federal government put millions of Africans into slavery.
The federal government then threw away half a million soldiers' lives to get them out it.
The federal government stole land from Mexico, Canada, France, England etc.

The revisionist history is getting strong with this one.

Betrayed the British Crown... such a bad thing this was.
Were slaves not already here under the great British crown rule?
Hmm. Half a million? The American Civil War? ~750,000 is about the number.
What land did the USA steal from France? Canada? Mexico lost their crap in a war. England? What etc.?

[petej0]

I think I probably should have clarified that I'm specifically talking about secure communication. Phone calls in particular. Maybe even emails and chats.

I guess I'm asking, am I wrong to not care if someone is listening in on a phone conversation (or, realistically, its recorded and nobody ever hears it). Or is able to see chats that I'm having? I just don't see the -present- issue in that. It's not that I don't want privacy. I do, trust me, I have privacy issues up the wazoo, but I just don't find it worth the time worrying if some NSA/CIA/Whatever is listening to my calls.

How about I ask it like this. Why does the government need to read my emails and listen to my phone calls?

[sheggaro]

No sane society has no sensible restrictions of freedom. You can certainly take it too far, though.

I think it's none of the government's business what's on my phone or on my computer.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

The revisionist history is getting strong with this one.

Betrayed the British Crown... such a bad thing this was.
Were slaves not already here under the great British crown rule?
Hmm. Half a million? The American Civil War? ~750,000 is about the number.
What land did the USA steal from France? Canada? Mexico lost their crap in a war. England? What etc.?

Apologies sensei, the extra 150,000 makes it ok.

I get it now, they're just misunderstood anti-heroes.

So this is what it feels like to be on the right side of history.

[petej0]

Apologies sensei, the extra 150,000 makes it ok.

I get it now, they're just misunderstood anti-heroes.

So this is what it feels like to be on the right side of history.

Declaring Independence is now a bad thing? Also, how did the US steal all this other land?

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Declaring Independence is now a bad thing? Also, how did the US steal all this other land?

They just rode up and took it.

[petej0]

They just rode up and took it.

Really? Thats not how history tells the story. Texas and Florida joined the Union of their own accord. The US didnt declare them part of the Union.

And while we are at it, how did Mexico, Spain, Britian etc.. get those lands?

[Ayla]

Id give up a lot of freedoms if I knew I had full security.
and by full security I mean meals of my choosing, a car, free medicine and a roof over my head of my choosing, with roommates of my choosing. Essentially, I'd need Star Trek levels of security, and security coming to my aid within minutes. Of course at that time the laws would have to change too from talking about doing something to taking steps to doing something. Sure I can buy parts to make a bomb, talk about it, look up how to do it, but I don't think action should be taken until I start assembly.

Until all my needs are met, they can piss off. I may not be doing something wrong, but I believe my business is my business.