zlacker

>>_____k+(OP)
Posted this three years ago, but its still relevant: My nothing to hide argument;

Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? Surely you want to hide your children from abusers and predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves.. Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or your blood type from rich mobsters with kidney problems..

we don't know who are any of these things. So we should protect ourselves from all of them, in effect we have everything to hide from someone, and no idea who someone is.

edit; let me just add the obvious, that the government and police, Google and Facebook, are made up of many someones.

>>cortic+gw
A murderer would like to hide their location history from civil justice authorities. We often argue the cons but not the pros of being able to trace history.

A lot of ongoing evidence is based on timestamped written communication. Including for the 1/6 indictment, here you could argue what constitutes as "right" or "wrong".

>>hacker+mI
> We often argue the cons but not the pros of being able to trace history.

With or without a warrant?

Meanwhile, surveillance increases as the number of unsolved crimes goes up. Coincidence?

Focusing on SIGINT while ignoring HUMINT is a terrible strategy.