zlacker

>>_____k+(OP)
The problem with the "I've got nothing to hide" argument is it's not "you" who decides what is "right" or "wrong". The entity doing the "spying" determines what is right or wrong. "You" might think "x" is ok, however the "spying" entity may have the opposite view. And it is the "spying" entity's opinion that matters, not yours, because it always them that have the power and authority in determining what is "right" or "wrong". Moreover, definitions change on what is "right" or "wrong".

>>deepth+tl
The real problem is that this argument relies on people actually meaning “anything”. It’s a strawman that’s so good, you get people actually trying to argue it, but the real argument isn’t about absolute publicity of information, it’s about providing access to additional information as a means to investigate wrongdoing. Very few people are practically suggesting every single fact ought to be public about a person.

Besides, doomsaying that “anything could be illegal!” isn’t backed by anything real or lasting.

>>Zetice+2t
>"anything [harmful] could be illegal!" isn't backed by anything real or lasting Are you serious? that's a pretty ahistoric view... Being jewish was illegal, being a free black person was illegal, shit, woman having freedom of medical procedure is illegal in some states today!

how on earth can you earnestly suggest things won't be made illegal that will harm people

>>mptest+w81
Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.

>>Zetice+Oe1
Cool. Real question, and truly think about it deep and hard: are you okay with being the martyr who ends up jailed, prosecuted, dead or what-have-you before we self correct?

These statements are very easy to make, but when push comes to shove the individuals saying it won't put their money where their mouth is. So, will you?

>>BlargM+Ws1
Yes, as are you, in the same way we’re willing to drive a car and therefore risk death.