Why ‘I Have Nothing to Hide’ Is the Wrong Way to Think About Surveillance
wired.com
wired.com
>Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
I really wish people would look beyond Snowden. It isn't as if there was zero knowledge of these types of programs or whistleblowers before him. William Binney, Thomas Drake, J. Kirk Wiebe, and Edward Loomis, just to name a few, deserve a lot more credit in this instance.
Many revealed the Holocaust to the Allies during WWII, but very sadly, no-one managed "to blow the lid off" until Germany collapsed. "The Nazis attempted to keep the Holocaust a secret, but in August 1942, Dr. Gerhart Riegner, the representative of the World Jewish Congress in Geneva, Switzerland, learned what was going on from a German source. Riegner asked American diplomats in Switzerland to inform Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, one of America’s most prominent Jewish leaders, of the mass murder plan. But the State Department, characteristically insensitive and influenced by anti-Semitism, decided not to inform Wise.
The rabbi nevertheless learned of Riegner’s terrible message from Jewish leaders in Great Britain. He immediately approached Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, who asked Wise to keep the information confidential until the government had time to verify it. Wise agreed and it was not until November 1942 that Welles authorized the release of Riegner’s message.
Wise held a press conference on the evening of November 24, 1942. The next day’s New York Times reported his news on its tenth page. Throughout the rest of the war, the Times and most other newspapers failed to give prominent and extensive coverage to the Holocaust. During World War I, the American press had published reports of German atrocities that subsequently turned out to be false. As a result, journalists during World War II tended to approach atrocity reports with caution." http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/american-response...
So I thank Edward Snowden, even more than I thank the rest.
They seem so much more enlightened now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M&t=1336
> "Blow the lid off" doesn't mean the first person to reveal something...
Which is probably why you remember Riegner, yet give no mention of Leon Feiner.
> ...it refers to an explosion that can't be ignored.
Sure, or an artful twist to facilitate some hero worship.
The "artful twist" is built-in to not just that idiom but also "blow wide open." It's not a coincidence, it's central to the meaning.
I'm not, and I don't understand your necessity to pick out one above others.
> Why not at least praise them all.
Easy, now. Don't forget that was my argument.
> Your blasts don't ... (unintelligible) ... or something?
Ugh, no. Let's not digress, again...
> The "artful twist" is built-in to not just that idiom but also "blow wide open." It's not a coincidence, it's central to the meaning.
That idiom is overused. That "artful twist" lost its impact a long time ago and "blow wide open" is just a variant. These days both are highly subjective (as illustrated above).
No, the impact from Snowden's actions are useful but no more explosive than what was, and is now becoming, known to those of us who were paying attention all along.
Which is the entire point of my original comment. Would you criticize the WSJ for not name dropping Trump in an article on political stupidity? Or did he blow that wide open, too?
Talk about not adding anything... Good grief, and good night.
Edit: my impression is that the general public somehow thinks that this data collected from mass surveillance is stored so securely that it can never be accessed by criminals. The only thing that could ever change this perception is some major breach of personal information followed by massive economic consequences, otherwise no one cares and politicians care too much about they own power that they will only expand surveillance efforts.
If you cannot observe any direct effects of an action without searching the person who performed the action, then it cannot be a criminal action, and theres a reasonable argument that this follows from the fourth amendment.
Privacy is integral to liberty. That is why this matters so much.
For example if politicians must disclose a lot of private information, only those who don't care about that will become politicians. And then since they are comfortable with it, they won't see any reason to control dissemination of others' private info.
(BTW I'm not criticizing you by saying this; I don't know a good fix).
But you know how everyone gets a blast of schadenfreude when that anti-drink-driving politician is pulled over for driving dangerously after having a few too many? Of course I laugh too, but I wonder if they have been so vocal about the issue because they know how dangerous it is. Whereas I, who drink little and don't even like to drive, probably wouldn't pay much attention to the issue if I became a politician.
Same way as we now at least hold them subject to the same laws involving money, taxes, and can use those laws to indict them.
Actually you can't really, and again for good reason, and again with unfortunate side effects as well.
Legislators have legislative immunity for good reason: otherwise people would use the courts to attack legislators for making decisions the attackers don't like (the emolument suit against Trump is avowedly similar[1], although he has a slightly different immunity). You can, after all, attack them just as well via the ballot box. In the US the FBI can still investigate crimes they suspect were committed by sitting legislators, and the house or senate can waive one of their members' immunity, so it kind of works.
At the opposite extreme, criminals run for office in India in order to take advantage of the legislative immunity from prosecution.
All this goes in the "some problems are simple to characterize but not simple to resolve" bucket. When people hear famous quotes from very smart people along the line of "if your explanation of your problem is complex, perhaps you don't really understand it" they often confuse that with "your solution must be simple too."
[1] I just heard an interview with one of the law professors bringing suit, Zephyr Teachout, who said she thought it would likely go nowhere but that it was worth making his life difficult. Even if you consider Trump an irredeemably corrupt mastermind, it is abuse of the legal system to use it when you know you'll fail. Not that this is the first time someone filed suit just to annoy someone else.