I've got nothing to hide

[qizmoduis]

Ever since the illegal spying activities authorized by the president have been exposed, I've heard folks repeat this phrase both in interviews and in print. It's a constant refrain, and supporters of the president use this attitude to defend their unconstitutional programs.

Why does it matter if you've got something to hide? This power was expressly and explicitly forbidden to the government and its agents by the very document that created it. The whole point and the very foundation of our republic is to not allow the government such powers over its citizens.

Where did all these sheep/citizens come from? Has our educational system failed so badly so that the vast majority of my fellow citizens don't even have the most basic understanding of the history of the founding of our country and its philosophies? How did we come to this?

Time and time again, history has proven that if a government has a power, that power will be exercised, often to the detriment of the citizens. I for one am not willing to surrender this point. I will not trade freedom for security, as the trade will ultimately fail, and the failure is happening in front of our very eyes right now.

How has America been brought so low?

 

[matt.m]

I aagree wholeheartedly. Look, do surveliance on the known/suspected trouble makers. However, leave the rest alone.

Just a thought. However, it has been my opinion that the Republican party is imploding in on itself and is willing to eat it's young.

Elections are coming up so keep this sort of thing in mind when you cast your ballot.

 

[Bigshadow]

Why does it matter if you've got something to hide?

I find that mentality disturbing too.

 

[heretic888]

I find that mentality disturbing too.

Ditto.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Doesn't matter if I have something to hide or not. I don't want them snooping in my personal and private life.

 

[terryl965]

Doesn't matter if I have something to hide or not. I don't want them snooping in my personal and private life.

I agree completely
Terry

 

[tshadowchaser]

Seems to me that back in he 60's the government did a lot of spying on individual also, so its nothing new for the government to spy on is citizens

 

[heretic888]

Seems to me that back in he 60's the government did a lot of spying on individual also, so its nothing new for the government to spy on is citizens

This has been brought up before.

It doesn't matter if every administration in the history of the United States engaged in illegal surveillance. It is still illegal and it is still wrong.

That an action was widely endorsed in the past does not validate its use in the presence. Otherwise, institutions like slavery and segregation would never have been abolished.

Laterz.

 

[Bigshadow]

Where did all these sheep/citizens come from? Has our educational system failed so badly so that the vast majority of my fellow citizens don't even have the most basic understanding of the history of the founding of our country and its philosophies? How did we come to this?

Well, people always want to believe the best, so many believe the government always has altruistic motives for everything it does. This has been reinforced by the government endorsed policy of providing a problem so that they can provide a solution for it. Of course, the source of the problem never appears to be the same as the source of the solution. This is often achieved via indirect means. Most people won't look past the surface and those same people generally don't remember national events older than about 30 to 90 days. They are kind of like goldfish in a bowl, everything is new.

Of course the government relies on this mentality. It is these goldfish people who say "I've got nothing to hide". Like you said, it isn't a matter of having nothing or something to hide. One could make the same case for being forced to live in a cage.... "Why would it matter, they would still be alive?"

 

[Sigung86]

"I've got nothing to hiide ... " is a copout for folks who either don't see that they have time to get involved, don't know enough to get involved, or just don't want to get involved.

fortunately, yet unfortunately to a degree, most of us have never had to live in a terrorist state or a dictatorial state. From a purely philosophical point of view, most of us have to right to not get involved. From a reality show point of view, most of us need to be involved.

I might or might not have stuff in my house that you would envy enough to want to steal. I, however, do not feel that I want to give you the right to be scoping out my house so YOU can make the determination.

On the other hand ... Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling" is worse than the slaughter of innocent people ..."

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Seems to me that back in he 60's the government did a lot of spying on individual also, so its nothing new for the government to spy on is citizens

It goes back way farther than that. The anti-communist programs during the Wilson presidency (that fathered the FBI) regularly opened mail, and I'm pretty sure I remember reading that back in the late 18th and early 19th century that it was done under the anti-sedition act.

Jeff

 

[HKphooey]

This has been going on for years. Heck, go shopping in a grocery store these days and they know exactly what your buying patterns are. Those littel cards are great for discounts, but ever wonder why you get coupons in the mail specific to what you are buying. Retailers hire consultants to follow you through a store an watch your buying patterns. Every top website is collecting data from it's users. Amazon knows more about you that Bush does!

It it keeps some nut job from blowing up a building or molesting my 12 year old niece, do what ya have to do. Just put the proper limitations in place.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The assumption is that if you've "got nothing to hide," you'd consent to a search (with or without a warrant) of your car, home or computer. I know police officers who assume that if a person denies them permission to search--then that individual "has something to hide."

The problem is, of course, that this "something" is then assumed to be illegal.

Let's look at those things one might kept private and away from prying eyes, yet are still within the boundaries of justice:

--Political literature or material that would connect the owner with a political or philosophical stance that is not considered mainstream or popular.

--Scientific, academic, or artistic literature, cinematography, art or music that is of a controversial nature because of its political or social impact.

--Erotica depicting sexual activities of individuals of a mature age or between consenting adults.

--Erotic pictures or videos of the individual searched, or of the owner's spouse or partner.

--Clothing or objects that suggest a sexual proclivity that is not within mainstream standards.

--Legal pharmaceuticals that would indicate an illness that the searched individual does not want known to the public for fear of public reaction. These might include cancer, depression, AIDS, herpes, bi-polar disorder, or schizophrenia.

--Birth control devices or medications.

--A recreational drug that is legal (or at least not criminal), yet stigmatized. This could include marijuana in certain states. This most certainly would include alcohol. Here I am suggesting the amount and manner carried are within the parameters of the law.

--Material that might indicate a person's sexual orientation.

--A weapon, or weapons. Again I posit the possession and manner of transport are legal.

--Material that is "classified counter-culture" by some, and that the owner does not want revealed to the public for risk of censure.

--Religious literature or material.

--A diary.

--Private e-mails or letters that might contain personal or embarrassing, yet legal, discourse.

--Information that might "out" an individual as the owner of a business or a "blog" or web site whose content or product is considered distasteful or unacceptable by a vocal segment of society.

--Receipts for purchased material that is legal, but considered objectionable by some.


Feel free to add to this list if I've missed anything.

In each of these instances I can think of someone I know who wants such information kept private and away from prying eyes. They are not violating any law, but might be violating someone else's sense of propriety, hence the need for secrecy.

Each of us demands a measure of privacy. Many of us lead "double lives" where our personal conduct behind closed doors would be considered unacceptable by the prudes and pundits of our society.

We want to be shielded from gossip and condemnation. We want privacy for its own sake and for its validation of our autonomy.

Hence the fourth amendment to the Bill of Rights.


Regards,


Steve