Political Theory

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

rhys — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:36:39 GMT

afederalrepublican1776:
anyone have any good lines of thought on debating the 'it doesnt matter if the government invades my privacy and rights, because i have nothing to hide' argument? just got done reading napolitano's newest book and have been engaging my father on privacy issues and he tends to take over the debate with 'but i have nothing to hide...' argument. this really comes up when he was renewing his concealed carry permit this past week. lets hear something!

I thought of a few more back-comments. One - would your father be willing to extend his lack of privacy and rights to the conversations he may have with his lawyer?!!

Two - is he aware that he is advocating that the government actively violate the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

Sean_M — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:03:26 GMT

when someone asks me why i object to unlawful searches if i have nothing to hide, i usually tell them "its none of your business what i'm hiding". i guess that doesnt help, because it reinforces the the perception that i would be a "sneaky" person. the problem with most people is that they don't see that this isn't about what government can find out, its about how much power they can have over "their" citizens.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

Bogart — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:42:57 GMT

Why settle with the least efficient mechanism to catch the evil doers known. That is by looking at people you know are not evil doers. For example I am not a terrorist nor do I have any inclination of becoming one. Why look at me when there are subsets of the population where there is a much higher chance of finding a terrorist. What makes it much worse is that I have nothing to hide so looking at me is a much more expensive proposition than looking at a more likely suspect.

Understand there is a finite amount of resource the government can throw at a problem. If the problem is scumbag terrorists then focus efforts on those losers and forget the rest of us. How is listening into a conversation between a company that makes steel making equipment to someone customer in Brazil? There is nothing but one motivation: Power!

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

rhys — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:33:05 GMT

afederalrepublican1776:
anyone have any good lines of thought on debating the 'it doesnt matter if the government invades my privacy and rights, because i have nothing to hide' argument? just got done reading napolitano's newest book and have been engaging my father on privacy issues and he tends to take over the debate with 'but i have nothing to hide...' argument. this really comes up when he was renewing his concealed carry permit this past week. lets hear something!

Tell him "Having nothing to hide is not sufficient cause for the government to invade your privacy or violate your rights."

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

Imperator03 — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:06:07 GMT

The problem with that argument is simple. Who does the searching? Are the laws easily understood by people? Right now with the multiplicity of laws, regulations, administrative rules nobody can say with any certainty what the law is. Even the people passing the laws don't agree on the meaning. Laws also don't take into account every possible consequence of that law. In fact passing a law against something usually makes the problem worse. As an example, let me use HIPPAA as an example.

HIPPAA was supposed to be used to protect people's health information from the dastardly insurance company who were callously denying people coverage due to existing health conditions in an effort to keep rates reasonable for healthy people. A consequence of this law is to make people unsure if what they are doing is against the law or not. The training materials they sent covered hospitals, which is great but we are a residential facility who operate very differently from a hospital. The lawmakers did not take this into account when they drafted the law, they only considered hospitals neglecting the fact that other organizations use health information also. Since there is such an ambiguity in the law, some bureaucrat can decide you're not incompliance and assess fines against you. You can appeal, but since the appellant agency is part of the same bureau the chances of you getting a fair hearing are nil. You can go to court but again, since juries can be overruled by the judge or an appellate court, the outcome there is in doubt, and by that time you've spent lots of time and treasure to reverse this thing. Why do you think so many people bite the bullet and settle? Because they've made it easy for you to do so rather than fight.

The war on drugs is another example. Nobody knows what the drug laws are and they are amended constantly. Strangely this doesn't seem to have a decreasing effect on the demand, if anything, demand has gone up.

In the end laws must uphold reason, laws cannot ever be used to overthrow reason.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

bowenj10 — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:51:19 GMT

If the subject comes up again, just go to his home and start rifling through his belongings.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

downside — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:13:25 GMT

If the government knows more about you than your friends or family, people within the government with access to more information than the general public has are in an easy position to blackmail individuals or politicians. There is no oversight because noone knows what the overseers know about what. A person with access to government surveillance information may have detailed information about a politician's sexual proclivities for instance-- and there does seem to be a lot of proclivities among politicians lately -- and could use that information as blackmail to influence a politicians's voting or selectively leak information on un-cooperative politicians.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

pairunoyd — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:03:01 GMT

pairunoyd:

I hate to break it to you, but if he has nothing to hide, HE is the enemy! Are you ready to accept that?

Mark 13 (see verse 12)

1And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

4Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

5And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

6For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

7And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.

8For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.

9But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

10And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

11But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

12Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

pairunoyd — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:09:22 GMT

Does a captor have anything to hide from his prisoner?

I hate to break it to you, but if he has nothing to hide, HE is the enemy! Are you ready to accept that?

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

macsnafu — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:30:15 GMT

The answer is of course we all have something to hide, even if it's not something illegal. Should someone be able to watch you make love to your wife or girlfriend? Should they be able to watch you when you go to the bathroom? Maybe I don't want someone to see how fat I am when changing clothes. Perhaps I just want some place where I can pick my nose without being seen.

So is there really anyone who can honestly say that they have absolutely nothing to hide?

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

Matthew Graybosch — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:53:00 GMT

Kakugo:
2)It is not reciprocal. OK, I allow the Government to know everything about me but why can't I know everything THEY do? Why can't I listen to their conversations or know what dirty businesses they have going on? And don't talk about national security or crackdown on crime: if they cannot trust someone who has "nothing to hide" who will they trust?

I agree with you, and would take it further. Please pardon the crudity, but I won't consider the US a free country until every citizen has the ability to know what the President is thinking about at any given moment -- even if he happens to be masturbating at the time.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

Matthew Graybosch — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:51:09 GMT

I don't know if it will help you, but when somebody tries that with me, I respond by saying, "You mean, you don't have anything to hide yet. Now, tell me: have you stopped beating your wife?"

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

afederalrepublican1776 — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:46:20 GMT

thanks guys, i've been out of town for a couple days.

some good points brought up that i could never really articulate well.

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

ozzy43 — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:12:04 GMT

Remind him that murderous systems - like the Soviet and Hitlerian systems, for example - were founded on this insidious line of reasoning. Then throw in these founders quotes:

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? - Thomas Jefferson

How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. - Thomas Jefferson

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. - Thomas Jefferson

And then ask him why he supposes he has it right and Washington and Jefferson had it completely wrong. :)

Re: debating against the 'but i have nothing to hide' argument

Kakugo — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:05:42 GMT

Two arguments:

1)What is still legal and perfectly acceptable today (ie smoking in your own house, talking ill of the government over the telephone) could be outlawed in the near future. Better be careful: complacency is more dangerous to freedom than tanks.

2)It is not reciprocal. OK, I allow the Government to know everything about me but why can't I know everything THEY do? Why can't I listen to their conversations or know what dirty businesses they have going on? And don't talk about national security or crackdown on crime: if they cannot trust someone who has "nothing to hide" who will they trust?