More importantly. I’m gonna use these screenshots, that could easily have been modified, as the basis for my entire understanding of “privacy versus security”. Without reviewing any of the sources.
I believe Abraham Lincoln summed it up in that famous meme: “If it’s a quote on a picture on the internet, it’s gotta be true”
"If a man posts a meme, surely his whole world view is encapsulated in it. For truly I say to you, no human can have depth beyond a joke that they make."
But then again, maybe you and Ghandi are just making assumptions as shallow as the jokes you are mocking.
No but you see I, a stranger on the internet, agree with the message of the post. Therefore, it must be correct, as one is unable to lie on the internet lest their shins be removed by the cyberpolice.
In the early 2010s, If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear had already been resurfacing as a common thought-stopping cliché here in the states, since SCOTUS had been adding carve-outs by the dozens to the fourth amendment to the Constitution to the United States (the one about protections from unreasonable searches and seizures). At first, if you didn't speak english, or are within 100 miles of a US border or coast (that's most of the US), the police got free probable cause. Eventually SCOTUS ruled that if you were searched illegally and evidence for a crime was found, that evidence could not be suppressed if the crime was significant enough (e.g. the clothes of a missing child no wait, simple drug possession was enough.)
We were already aware of the FISC, FBI National Security Letters (the origins of the NSL canary statements) and the disposition matrix, by which even US citizens could be sentenced to execution by secret trial; the right to face one's accuser was long forfeit.
But then, it was also a period in which US citizens averaged about three crimes a day, mostly violations of the CFAA (which Reagan signed into law after watching Wargames 1983. Violation of the TOS of a website was a federal felony, which meant every tween that got a Facebook Friendster or Myspace account was committing a crime that could be sentenced up to 25 years (what is the upper limit for murder one in some states). It wasn't enforced... unless some official needed you to go away, say because he wanted your wife, or your property, or for you to shut up about his crimes.
And this is one example, and why telephone encryption is such a problem. Today, it's illegal in most states for law enforcement to search your phone once you're in custody without a warrant. They do anyway, and might or might not be able to crack the encryption with current tech (it's an ongoing race between exploits and fixes). If they find something worth prosecuting, or assets worth seizing or extorting you over, or if they just don't like you, then yes, expect to lose all your valuable property and assets, and become their informant. Sexual favors may also be necessary if you're attractive.
And that's why we need privacy, even as SCOTUS continues to strip it away from us.
In the 2020s, though, it's all the other technologies: IMSI spoofing, camera drones, ALPRs, Facial Recognition (which is a good way to get falsely convicted), Ring doorbell camera botnets, reverse warrants based on location or websearches, and so on. Big Brother is left holding the beer of IRL 2024.
We have always been a shameful nation, even from the beginning.
"All men are created equal"
is slave state
But what happened to Snowden was a modern reaffirmation of our long held belief that this is a nation not only created by the shitters, but also maintained for the new and improved generation of shitters.
Privacy and security are synonymous, especially on the internet. Already independent of the fact that certain companies make money with your data for spurious purposes, too often without control and necessary protection.
If they really think there's no reason to hide anything, why are they prosecuting Snowden for exposing something that was hidden?
Before having surveillance on people, they should have it on themselves.
Imagine how many corruption cases could have been prevented if the government was publicly monitored, with live streams from all offices, like a "big brother" show set up in the white house with live recordings of all calls and communications, so the voters can judge by themselves and monitor if the person they employed as the servant for the country is doing its job.
Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends—people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.’
Let's be clear: the right to privacy is not a fascist dogma.
Since Goebbels used the phrase "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", then he'd be the one arguing against the right to privacy. The fascist dogma is eroding privacy in favour of surveillance - ostensibly to protect the people, but really just to control them.
The same oligarchs who lash out at you for wanting privacy are the same who are doing dark evil deeds that they absolutely want to keep private and a secret.
"Let the good guys see your messages" erases the dialectical materialism of the situation. All guys are guys looking out for their own class interests. So if you let the Powers That Be surveil you, you have something to fear if you happen to be their friend. If they dislike you, you surely have something to fear.
"The powers that be" doesn't describe anything, nothing permanent anyway. The only constant is change, and that applies to leadership of any sort. A friendly leadership today is a hostile leadership tomorrow because its all a game of musical chairs. The tools to violate privacy, once created, will fall into all hands. In my opinion, we will learn the easy way.. or the unfortunate way.
That said, I didn't understand most of your message but responded to the small part that was communicated clearly.
Finally I'd like to (hopefully constructively) critique of your writing style. In the future I think that you should prioritize understandability and explanation over vocabulary and brevity. What use is a display of swordsmanship to a blind crowd?
When addressing a group of size, you can't please everyone, as different listeners will have different bits of prior knowledge.
I assumed an audience on an ML forum would know the difference between an idealist argument and a dialectical materialist one (rather than being a "blind crowd"). If not, that can't be helped: you can't customise speech to a varied audience.
I understand your perspective. Hopefully my critique wasn't overstepping. I'm just one person with some ideas I thought would help you. Maybe so, maybe not! Seems like we're both trying and that is all we can do. Have a nice day.
My only problem is that he could have chosen to violate the bad law in the way King and others have violated bad laws in an effort to shed light on their badness: break the bad law in the open where everyone can see, then get arrested, then put the bad law and the system behind it on trial.
By running away, he's given the people who are doing bad things a line of attack against him. It's bullshit, and doesn't change the fact that widespread warrantless surveillance is wrong. But some people will take the attacks against Snowden seriously. If he had turned himself in and gone to trial, that line of attack would be gone.
If being arrested and going to trial was his big concern, he would have taken that over running. We're talking about the NSA and CIA here. He was afraid of being suicided in jail before ever getting to a trial.
Honestly I'm a little surprised he's still alive. Russia wasn't his plan, but it may have been the best place for him to end up.
54 Comments
veeesix@lemmy.ca · 76 pts · 2y
Would you like to save this Lemmy post of a Tumblr post of a Reddit post that has been cross-posted on Lemmy to your Pinterest board?
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one · 21 pts · 2y
we're taking this post to Threads next.
onlinepersona@programming.dev · 40 pts · 2y
galoisghost@aussie.zone · 12 pts · 2y
More importantly. I’m gonna use these screenshots, that could easily have been modified, as the basis for my entire understanding of “privacy versus security”. Without reviewing any of the sources.
I believe Abraham Lincoln summed it up in that famous meme: “If it’s a quote on a picture on the internet, it’s gotta be true”
JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee · 5 pts · 2y
Lol. I don't care whether a Nazi said the quote, but they make good arguments besides for that
SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
Ah, but dont forget Ghandi's famous quote.
"If a man posts a meme, surely his whole world view is encapsulated in it. For truly I say to you, no human can have depth beyond a joke that they make."
But then again, maybe you and Ghandi are just making assumptions as shallow as the jokes you are mocking.
JackRiddle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2y
No but you see I, a stranger on the internet, agree with the message of the post. Therefore, it must be correct, as one is unable to lie on the internet lest their shins be removed by the cyberpolice.
deathmetal27@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2y
We must go deeper.
Landless2029@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2y
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2y
Now post it on Facebook or Reddit
Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
I just posted it in my Matrix server where I am the sole member because no one wants to use it yet.
Please let me drag my Chat rooms into the order I want pleaseeee
Mango@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2y
DRM free because the message matters!
mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 2y
Yes
hellfire103@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 2y
Great idea. That'll be hilarious!
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net · 44 pts · 2y
Gold!
mox@lemmy.sdf.org · 6 pts · 2y
This looks like it could be the source. It's a reddit post by /u/starrywisdomofficial from almost exactly four years ago.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 17 pts · 2y
In the early 2010s, If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear had already been resurfacing as a common thought-stopping cliché here in the states, since SCOTUS had been adding carve-outs by the dozens to the fourth amendment to the Constitution to the United States (the one about protections from unreasonable searches and seizures). At first, if you didn't speak english, or are within 100 miles of a US border or coast (that's most of the US), the police got free probable cause. Eventually SCOTUS ruled that if you were searched illegally and evidence for a crime was found, that evidence could not be suppressed if the crime was significant enough (e.g.
the clothes of a missing childno wait, simple drug possession was enough.)We were already aware of the FISC, FBI National Security Letters (the origins of the NSL canary statements) and the disposition matrix, by which even US citizens could be sentenced to execution by secret trial; the right to face one's accuser was long forfeit.
But then, it was also a period in which US citizens averaged about three crimes a day, mostly violations of the CFAA (which Reagan signed into law after watching Wargames 1983. Violation of the TOS of a website was a federal felony, which meant every tween that got a
FacebookFriendster or Myspace account was committing a crime that could be sentenced up to 25 years (what is the upper limit for murder one in some states). It wasn't enforced... unless some official needed you to go away, say because he wanted your wife, or your property, or for you to shut up about his crimes.And this is one example, and why telephone encryption is such a problem. Today, it's illegal in most states for law enforcement to search your phone once you're in custody without a warrant. They do anyway, and might or might not be able to crack the encryption with current tech (it's an ongoing race between exploits and fixes). If they find something worth prosecuting, or assets worth seizing or extorting you over, or if they just don't like you, then yes, expect to lose all your valuable property and assets, and become their informant. Sexual favors may also be necessary if you're attractive.
And that's why we need privacy, even as SCOTUS continues to strip it away from us.
In the 2020s, though, it's all the other technologies: IMSI spoofing, camera drones, ALPRs, Facial Recognition (which is a good way to get falsely convicted), Ring doorbell camera botnets, reverse warrants based on location or websearches, and so on. Big Brother is left holding the beer of IRL 2024.
starman@programming.dev · 17 pts · 2y
There is no proof that Goebbels actually said this
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear-a-line-used-by-joseph
EatATaco@lemm.ee · 9 pts · 2y
More importantly, from that link, it predates him so he certainly did not come up with it.
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 2y
See also: Nothing to hide argument
Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2y
Tragedy what happened to this hero.
We have always been a shameful nation, even from the beginning.
"All men are created equal"
is slave state
But what happened to Snowden was a modern reaffirmation of our long held belief that this is a nation not only created by the shitters, but also maintained for the new and improved generation of shitters.
ErwinLottemann@feddit.de · 11 pts · 2y
GNU Terry Pratchett
Zerush@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2y
Privacy and security are synonymous, especially on the internet. Already independent of the fact that certain companies make money with your data for spurious purposes, too often without control and necessary protection.
Ferk@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2y
If they really think there's no reason to hide anything, why are they prosecuting Snowden for exposing something that was hidden?
Before having surveillance on people, they should have it on themselves.
Imagine how many corruption cases could have been prevented if the government was publicly monitored, with live streams from all offices, like a "big brother" show set up in the white house with live recordings of all calls and communications, so the voters can judge by themselves and monitor if the person they employed as the servant for the country is doing its job.
jsomae@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 2y
Goebbels is not the first person to say this. An earlier quote comes from Upton Sinclair in 1918:
Let's be clear: the right to privacy is not a fascist dogma.
beebarfbadger@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
Since Goebbels used the phrase "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", then he'd be the one arguing against the right to privacy. The fascist dogma is eroding privacy in favour of surveillance - ostensibly to protect the people, but really just to control them.
jsomae@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 2y
I don't know how I got that so backward when I wrote that. Thanks for correcting me.
Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 2y
Can someone post that one meme please
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" "Oh ok, I'll just leak these secret government files online then!" terror
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2y
I fully agree with what he says, but it doesn't seem to be an answer to her question.
Yes, our right to privacy is important, and he very clearly, and, not sure how say it, makes it relatable and easy to understand.
But, her question seems to have more to do with privacy at the cost of public safety.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2y
I would say living in a free society isn't without risks.
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2y
Living isn't without risks.
beebarfbadger@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2y
And that's why we must lock every one of our free citizens up. Y'know, for their protection.
Scolding0513@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2y
The same oligarchs who lash out at you for wanting privacy are the same who are doing dark evil deeds that they absolutely want to keep private and a secret.
Pinklink@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 2y
Oh Eddy…
Gooey0210@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 2y
I see too much useless reddit lately, please stop
EatATaco@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
Do you really believe this place to be substantially different?
Gooey0210@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2y
It was at some point at least 🫠
I'm still on the no poop challenge
delirious_owl@discuss.online · -1 pts · 2y
Please report it to the mods.
LWD@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 2y
Lack of dialectical materialism.
"Let the good guys see your messages" erases the dialectical materialism of the situation. All guys are guys looking out for their own class interests. So if you let the Powers That Be surveil you, you have something to fear if you happen to be their friend. If they dislike you, you surely have something to fear.
stembolts@programming.dev · 8 pts · 2y
"The powers that be" doesn't describe anything, nothing permanent anyway. The only constant is change, and that applies to leadership of any sort. A friendly leadership today is a hostile leadership tomorrow because its all a game of musical chairs. The tools to violate privacy, once created, will fall into all hands. In my opinion, we will learn the easy way.. or the unfortunate way.
That said, I didn't understand most of your message but responded to the small part that was communicated clearly.
Finally I'd like to (hopefully constructively) critique of your writing style. In the future I think that you should prioritize understandability and explanation over vocabulary and brevity. What use is a display of swordsmanship to a blind crowd?
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 2y
When addressing a group of size, you can't please everyone, as different listeners will have different bits of prior knowledge.
I assumed an audience on an ML forum would know the difference between an idealist argument and a dialectical materialist one (rather than being a "blind crowd"). If not, that can't be helped: you can't customise speech to a varied audience.
stembolts@programming.dev · 2 pts · 2y
I understand your perspective. Hopefully my critique wasn't overstepping. I'm just one person with some ideas I thought would help you. Maybe so, maybe not! Seems like we're both trying and that is all we can do. Have a nice day.
LWD@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 2y
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 2y
The first two sentences are about the general model; the rest applies it to the particular subject.
JackRiddle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2y
You seem to agree with the post, so why does your comment read like you are trying to show you are superior to it?
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 2y
I agree with Snowden not the other person
ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip · -9 pts · 2y
I think what Snowden did was fundamentally good.
My only problem is that he could have chosen to violate the bad law in the way King and others have violated bad laws in an effort to shed light on their badness: break the bad law in the open where everyone can see, then get arrested, then put the bad law and the system behind it on trial.
By running away, he's given the people who are doing bad things a line of attack against him. It's bullshit, and doesn't change the fact that widespread warrantless surveillance is wrong. But some people will take the attacks against Snowden seriously. If he had turned himself in and gone to trial, that line of attack would be gone.
Steve@communick.news · 20 pts · 2y
If being arrested and going to trial was his big concern, he would have taken that over running. We're talking about the NSA and CIA here. He was afraid of being suicided in jail before ever getting to a trial.
Honestly I'm a little surprised he's still alive. Russia wasn't his plan, but it may have been the best place for him to end up.
delirious_owl@discuss.online · -20 pts · 2y
Downvoted. Please dont post images of text. Blind people cannot read it.
Type the text next time.
Empricorn@feddit.nl · 16 pts · 2y
You could transcribe it...
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee · -1 pts · 2y
Why would I fix something when I can bitch?
jmankman@lemmy.myserv.one · 13 pts · 2y
Don't post images of objects, blind people cannot see them.
Type the items next time.
SaltyIceteaMaker@iusearchlinux.fyi · 3 pts · 2y
Only post images as ASCII art
reverendsteveii@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 2y
No matter how right you are you don't get to be a dick.
delirious_owl@discuss.online · -4 pts · 2y
what did I do that was dick-ish?
We should all be doing our part to downvote and report low effort spam. It improves the quality of our communities.