What happened to OC? - CLOSED Carnage?!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
icstars2

"If you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about"

37 posts in this topic

xTvqp.png?1

With the rising power being given to police, such as a case where the FBI can read your emails or search your body without the need for a warrant, many are saying "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." But, is this really accurate? What is the limit where police and other law enforcement personal need to put a stop to their acts and how can we decide on where the limit should be? Should we really turn a blind eye as the people in power push the limits regarding our lives every day?

Pfhunkie and Takka like this

343OrM8.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiddy-bits:

It's not that if you're innocent you should have nothing to hide, but that you're being told you don't get to keep something to yourself or a certain group, as legal as it may be. I have no disagreement with warranted searching or spying, however when you do so to the common citizen, you're demonstrating a generalized level of distrust which should never be implemented by any government. If such an action is found necessary, something is fundamentally wrong with your system or culture.

As it has been said many times before, those who sacrifice freedom for security are deserving of neither. You can get to a certain point where the people no longer become the people, but an extension of your physical assets. Everyone has the freedom to make the wrong choices, punishment should be the reactionary response.

Kvasir and Kru like this

Oddly, this is familiar to you... as if from an old dream.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A main problem is that people do have things to hide, and are afraid that as police get more power to snoop that they'll uncover their dirty laundry. Everybody has a skeleton in the closet, and everyone wants to see into other persons business, but not at the extent where it will show their faults too.

A problem with putting a limit on something like this is where do we stop and who do we include or exclude? Let's say you know somebody has done something wrong, such as kiddy touching, but cannot get a warrant to prove it. By allowing police to peer into their life they could get the information they need in order to make an arrest. However, this clearly violates their rights in many ways. Does the fact that a kiddy toucher or murderer, who may have ruined many lives, is in jail at the cost of their rights, make it "okay?"


343OrM8.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's say you know somebody has done something wrong, such as kiddy touching, but cannot get a warrant to prove it. By allowing police to peer into their life they could get the information they need in order to make an arrest. However, this clearly violates their rights in many ways. Does the fact that a kiddy toucher or murderer, who may have ruined many lives, is in jail at the cost of their rights, make it "okay?"

There's a difference in morality and what should be legally done, it's a circumstantial argument that can't be applied to everything. You must obtain a warrant based on evidence before peering into someones private life. Not because it's wrong or right, but because without that system there is a huge opportunity for abuse, which you know people will take advantage of. It would turn into a he said she said scenario where all authorities went on was others unverified words, people more often than not have ulterior motives.

Kvasir likes this

Oddly, this is familiar to you... as if from an old dream.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference in morality and what should be legally done, it's a circumstantial argument that can't be applied to everything. You must obtain a warrant based on evidence before peering into someones private life. Not because it's wrong or right, but because without that system there is a huge opportunity for abuse, which you know people will take advantage of. It would turn into a he said she said scenario where all authorities went on was others unverified words, people more often than not have ulterior motives.

I agree; however, as your news post about the FBI being allowed to peer into emails without a warrant, the line of what they can and cannot do in our system is being skewed daily and edging closer to receding further.

343OrM8.jpg?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, I'm not really stating how it is anymore, but how I think it should be. Which is basically more as it was in the past.


Oddly, this is familiar to you... as if from an old dream.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must obtain a warrant based on evidence before peering into someones private life. Not because it's wrong or right, but because without that system there is a huge opportunity for abuse, which you know people will take advantage of.

Definitely agree here.

I think that one great thing about the United States and its constitution is how much it protects us from government itself. Suppose I have a firearm in the trunk of my car and want to drive through several states. I may have violated several state laws by crossing borders with a firearm, but it doesn't matter. Since it never left my trunk and nobody saw it, it might as well be a non-issue.

That's the beauty of the constitution - getting government out of the way of the people. Privacy isn't a means of "getting away with things", its a means of getting the government's noses out of our business!

Takka and Kvasir like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is, "If I have nothing to hide, why are you snooping?"

The original question in itself is a logical fallacy and I wish the government would quit using it to justify their actions to impede on privacy.

Edited by Santas Sack
Ryx and Floofies like this

System Administrator (Well Rounded) | AWS | Azure | Microsoft 365

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is, "If I have nothing to hide, why are you snooping?"

This I like.

The original question in itself is a logical fallacy and I wish the government would quit using it to justify their actions to impede on privacy.

Tbh, it's not the government I see using this argument, it's the pundits.

Kvasir and Solaris like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the beauty of the constitution - getting government out of the way of the people. Privacy isn't a means of "getting away with things", its a means of getting the government's noses out of our business!

It would be beautiful if the United States government looked at the constitution as more than just a suggestion. The constitution has no real effect, other than inspiration, on United States law.

The real question is, "If I have nothing to hide, why are you snooping?"

The original question in itself is a logical fallacy and I wish the government would quit using it to justify their actions to impede on privacy.

They're snooping because they believe they have a reason to suspect you of wrong doing. I'm not saying that's a good reason to have the ability to pry into your private affairs but I feel like the original question isn't a logical fallacy.
icstars2 likes this

4VWJfoZ.gif

"You fix my mistakes is what you do." - Tucker
"You're useless." - Tucker 2 minutes later

"You're sort of cool in some ways." - Kavawuvi

 

"Fuck off." - Mint Blitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.