It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Kids that are 8 today will have a vastly different picture of what "privacy" means when they are of adult age.
originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Maxmars
Really, I don't know what the big fuss is all about...I don't care if they read my emails or eavesdrop on my conversations. I do not have anything to hide. Hell, they may even learn something useful. the only people that have a real problem with this are the ones trying to hide stuff. I say eavesdrop away and maybe catch some crooks or pedophiles or whatever!
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Maxmars
I love how the USA gives #ty laws names like patriot and freedom, the opposite of what the laws stand for.
Come on grow a brain people.
Least in the UK we call a turd a turd even if it is thrust on us still,
originally posted by: Wiz4769
I would worry that "something bad" happens and then they will say, see what happens when we cant watch what everyone is doing?? We could have stopped this horrible act if only we could of scanned all email and all other forms of communications...Then people will scream, please spy all you want, just don't let bad things happen to us....
I do not have anything to hide.
originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: JHumm
Not a bad idea...where do I sign up for such a tag? I would rather they were able to keep an eye on the people that need eye keeping...like I said, I have nothing to hide, they can look all they want... I will leave the light on and whatever I have lying around will not be anything they will care about in the interest of National security.
everyone generally plays along to get along when they get into positions of power...
originally posted by: JAK
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree
It has been understood for many years that when people feel they are being observed they alter their behaviour.
Panoptican
The Panopticon is a type of institutional building designed by the English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. The concept of the design is to allow a single watchman to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) inmates of an institution without the inmates being able to tell whether or not they are being watched. Although it is physically impossible for the single watchman to observe all cells at once, the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched means that all inmates must act as though they are watched at all times, effectively controlling their own behaviour constantly.
This reaction is not limited to those partaking in criminal activities.
Are there no moments in your life where although you are not breaking any laws you enjoy privacy, privacy being the freedom to go about your business without oversight? Free expression in a love letter, honest words from either direction between you and a relation in their last moments... Aren't there are numerous examples of moments where privacy is the parent of freedom?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Privacy is an essential part of freedom and in the context of this issue the word privacy exists as representative of the freedom to communicate unmolested, without fear or restraint from any quarter. To communicate the exchange of ideas without restraint requires at least the belief that the exchange is truly free from any restrictions and certainly not something which the very existence of is down due to the generous disposition of even the most benevolent dictator. Even the considered position of refusing to be kowtowed by an overseer is itself a move away from free communication.
Whether real or imaginary it is fear which is bowed to in a willingness to trade freedom for security. At best this resulting freedom exists as a malformed incarnation - a change of heart from authority and the machinery is already in place for that freedom to mutate further, into something entirely illusory.
'I have nothing to hide' is perhaps the weakest defence for the position of acceptance of such an invasion of privacy through granting another the authority to impinge upon your freedom of communication. Certainly it seems that only the short-sighted or parties with a vested interest would try to smear the whole discussion by reaching to the bottom of the barrel and dragging up such an (albeit weak) insultingly dismissive statement as ' the only people that have a real problem with this are the ones trying to hide stuff'. (Chucking about bogeymen 'crooks and paedophiles' a la 'won't sumbody fink of da children!' doesn't add weight either.
You are accepting because you believe you have nothing to hide: gifting your authority here to another is a move taken because of your believe you have nothing to hide. Yet it is not even you who is in the position to decide whether you have anything to hide. That argument stands weakened even before tagged onto the sentence 'I have nothing to hide from government' is the word 'today'.
Acquiescence here may be a position you are happy to adopt but, for my money, the simplistic justification offered for such a stance fails to present even a reasonably arguable point of substance to weigh when considering an actual loss of freedom (lets use that word instead of the more easily malleable term privacy) for everyone.
Too many hypocrites want to use this freedom thing as a way to bellyache.