"I have nothing to hide so why should I care anon?"

>>57575896
free speech
>i have nothing to say
>so why do I care

>>57575896
you shouldn't

now fuck off

>>57575896
https://stallman.org/something-to-fear.html

>>57575896
Best arguments for what?

Your post is not very clear as to what you're trying to accomplish. In the future, include a title or position for people to argue against!

88/100 :)

>>57575896
privacy =/= secrecy

>>57575896
let me see your genitals right now

And I said nothing, because I was not a pirate.

File: 1479441273934.gif (58KB, 129x111px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 129x111px

>>57575896
wtf does this have to do with tech?

>>57575896
fucking kill yourself

>>57576008
I read it. It's shit arguments.

>>57576096
what about it is shit

>>57575896
There are none. Only criminal scum has something to hide.

>Edward Snowden: "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."

Honestly, this quote should be stickied around here.

>>57576105
Didnt you read the post? The arguments.

>>57576105
The articles assume that revealing your favorite porn is worse than terrorism.

>>57575896
I don't have any arguments because i don't try to convert people that don't give a shit about privacy, ignorance is bliss so if they're happy so be it.

But if asked i just reply with "because i do have things to hide".

>>57575896
>have nothing to hide
Can I have your facebook and email details? Serious question here.

File: 1455760570589.jpg (50KB, 313x163px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 313x163px

>>57576096
>Present properly structured, valid reasons
>"I read it. It's shit arguments."
Has /v/ toddlers completely taken over?

>>57576146
Which ones?

>information is power
>are you willing to run the risk that someday you might end up in a power struggle with someone who controls or can access sensitive information about your private life?
>Privacy isn't the same as secrecy

these seem like pretty valid points to me

>>57576066
>>57576204
You're not the government dummy.

>>57576252
okay, let donald trump see your genitals after January 20th

>>57576252
US is not my government either. We are even.

Get your details posted in pastebin right now.

>>57576241
Not completely, there's also plenty of /b/tards and /pol/fags.

>>57576247
>>>57576146
>Which ones?
>>information is power
No one cares about me.
>>are you willing to run the risk that someday you might end up in a power struggle with someone who controls or can access sensitive information about your private life?
I don't live in a story book.
>>Privacy isn't the same as secrecy
>these seem like pretty valid points to me
The only difference is the connotation.

Information is power. I don't want to give others power over me for no reason.

>>57576344
Thats okay anon but can you follow >>57576267 please

>>57575896
Well, you're just a redhat shill!
>Haha! That totally justifies my argument on why Solus is the best operating system. Hehehoohoo if anyone believes me their head has a booboo.

>>57576115
But only bad people have anything to hide, anon.

>>57576493
see >>57576204

>>57576267
A reasonable government would be OK with us spying on you for terrorists.
An unreasonable government would not be OK with us spying on you for terrorists. You are a terrorist breeding ground so we are justified in spying on you anyway.

>>57576506
Sure, as soon as you prove you're a member of the FBI, CIA, or NSA and give me a secure channel to deliver this information to you.

Or would you rather continue pulling false equivalencies out of your gaping asshole?

>>57576344
>No one cares about me.
Have you ever stopped for one second to consider why that is?

>>57576576
I own a private surveillance company, much like many of the companies that the FBI, CIA or NSA has contracted work out to. I am just as reputable as they are. So hand it over please, thanks.

>>57576576
What makes me any different from a malicious member of the FBI, CIA, or NSA or government in general

>>57576560
Well not really.
On the contrary your country steals our government secrets and sensitive information regarding your bureaucrats, Ambassadors and businessmen.

We want your information in return. Calling everyone "terrorists" is not going to help you this time.

>>57576642
Sorry but the private sector is evil. Go away. :)

>>57576649
You're not going to be held responsible for your actions like they would.

>>57576705
>private sector is evil
>but the "we say we aren't evil" government is a-okay
lol right

>>57576726
Yeah, that is right. You aren't familiar with the concept of a bureaucratic republic, are you?

>>57576705
So then why do you trust the FBI, CIA, NSA to contract work out to the private sector?

>>57576115
It's completely different because they're two different things. You're bad at believing things if the best argument you can come up with is an analogy.

>>57575935
this and false incrimination. They can easily manipulate your info that they gathered to fuck you over, even if you are following the internet law.

you wouldn't mind letting me on your facebook and reading all of your private messages and if you do then you must have something to hide.

>>57575896
then show your puss...

>>57578399
>implying I didn't just google hot girl shrugging to bait all you faggots in here

>>57576809
Well anon wouldn't it stand to reason the almighty, all seeing, botnet controlling gubbermint could keep them in line? The entire argument is liberal tier, it implies the government is both all powerful and completely powerless at the same time.

The only real argument is that secrecy is itrinsic to privacy, and privacy is a basic human right. Of course some people believe basic human rights and freedom are too dangerous so here we are, at a stalemate we are doomed to lose, awaiting dystopia.

>>57575896
sure idgaf NSA can spy on stupidfags all they want, anyone with wireshark installed can do it anyway. just don't ban encryption, now that's retarded

File: imgres.jpg (8KB, 185x272px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 185x272px

One facet of this argument that goes largely undiscussed is that it is bad for an imperfect government to be able to predict all crime. Some of the greatest steps forward in human history were only made possible by people being able to hide information from their government. If the church had access to Galileo's research journals and notes we could be hundreds of years behind in our scientific growth. If the government had unlimited access to the networks of civil dissidents blacks may have never fought off Jim Crow. If King George had perfect information America would never have been a country. There is no government on earth that is perfect, and therefore there is no government on earth that can act responsibly with unlimited access to information. A government is unlikely to be able to distinguish between a negative and positive disruption to it's social order and laws, and it therefore follows that an unlimited spying program can only hinder the next great social step forward. Don't fear the surveillance state because you might have something illegal, fear the surveillance state because it is a tremendous institutional barrier to meaningful societal progress.

>>57579103
My favorite one to make normies squirm is
>What if they caught Harriet Tubman because the government tracked her iPhone?
They cannot cope with how much of their politically correct, consumerist world is blowing up in their face to make a counterpoint.

>>57579103
>If the government had unlimited access to the networks of civil dissidents blacks may have never fought off Jim Crow
So what's the problem again? :^)

Do you wear clothes? Does your house have curtains? Do you let anyone who wants to look through your bank statements? Can I read your diary?

>>57579231
>Can I read your diary?
Who the fuck keeps a diary?

It's not about having something to hide, it's about what the government can do with that type of information (extremely high level social engineering, pointed abuse, etc). I'm actually sort of interested to see what happens when we get supercomputers and/or spooks start writing more algorithms/data sorting. Because right now they say they don't look except in specific circumstances (which is BS) and that the data being generated is too big to even sift through. I'm sure they'll get there though and that's a dataset that could tell you a whole host of things that social scientists have only dreamed of. And of course what follows from that is a more centrally planned/invisibly totalitarian society. Like, manipulation without force. It's heady/scary stuff.

>>57578327
This. I don't use facebook, but the government is staffed by people that are imperfect.

One of the articles linked on Stallman's page mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
Sounds like a total ass, abusing his powers as the head of the FBI.

>>57579103
>>57579266
quality posts gents

>>57579238
>Who keeps a diary?
Girls. You'd know this if you knew any.

Stop trying to justify your CP stash loser

>>57575896
It's not about just the practical matters of the government spying on you, the daunting thing about them being able to do this is that it infringes on your right to security. You should have the freedom of privacy from the prying eyes of a larger agency.

I know it's difficult for the normie to understand more abstract philosophical concepts like "freedom", but its the reason so many people are distrustful of this whole situation, it's an intrusion into one's life that many don't want.

Would you care if you had cameras in your house that the government watched you on all day? In all honestly, you already do, things like Google Home are just companies wiretapping your house. To me, the scary part to me is that people buy this shit themselves. They buy the wiretap, they agree by way of lisencing agreement to let these companies listen to everything you say and track where you go. Your smartphone logs everything you do on it and stores it in a server for either the government to access, or to be sold t the highest bidder.

>>57582474
*threatening not daunting

>>57579266
They can't really control you by collecting what websites you frequent though, the majority of data they collect is nowhere near that powerful.

The best they can do at the moment is give you targeted advertising and maybe influence you towards specific websites by analyzing what you click on. But ultimately human behavior is a lot more unpredictable than you might think, even with the vast amount of data being collected it would be hard to start socially engineering a crowd successfully.

Knowing who you are collecting the data from, their every device and collecting A BUNCH of data from each one of those devices and each program being run on each of those devices; that would yield some scary circumstances.

As it stands now you would have to be deep into the net, signed up for every single botnet service and using them all every single day. All these nets would have to be owned by one interested party or all the data sold to one interested party for someone to make any scary behavior predictions from it. Not to mention this interested party would have to be actively looking to sort you out of the data and analyse everything relating to you.

I think everyone on /g/ is a little too paranoid sometimes. You can't just collect a shit load of data, run it through a 'super computer' and then instantly be able to socially engineer a bunch of people successfully. Data is only useful when the desired outcome/prediction is specific to the data being collected, AKA internet data will at best likely only be able to slightly influence your internet behaviour, but it's a lot worse at it if you're aware of it, obviously

t. Data Scientist

File: 1223935961212.jpg (87KB, 600x596px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x596px

>i have nothing to hide
So you are saying that if i released your browsing history into the public, into your workplace, into your school, to your family and friends, nothing will happen?

>>57576189
I don't care if you watch baby rape murder porn. It's bad but that's second hand violence. Terrorism is obviously worse.

>>57582640
Except that doesn't happen unless we're talking about malicious coders with a personal vendetta against you. Try not moving the goalpost in your arguments.

>>57576319
good post

>>57585779
>Except that doesn't happen unless we're talking about malicious coders with a personal vendetta against you.
Or malicious government workers who use their job to form a side-gig and sell your info to any begrudged co-worker or ad firm or entity who wants to blackmail you for some purpose,
because it so happens that government agencies are run by humans, humans are unpredictable and individualistic, and some humans are good at acting and being cunning.
Or maybe you can refer to Ben "Killin' Schlomo in Slo-Mo" Garrison who wasn't trolled out of vendetta as much as entertainment for entertainment's sake.

You want to talk moving goalposts, yet you conveniently strip whole segments of human nature just for convenience of argument.

It's one thing being deluded, it's another to re-define human nature for convenience to support your delusions.
Where there exists a group of people, there always exist bad apples.