I understand people will go far lengths to protect their privacy but with the internet once you have a email they probably have a good idea about you already, and unless you are doing something with malicious intent the government probably (hopefully) doesn’t really care, so why is it such a huge thing?
In: 22
>unless you are doing something with malicious intent the government probably (hopefully) doesn’t really care, so why is it such a huge thing?
They may not care today, but who knows if they will care tomorrow.
Famously, during the 1970s, Nixon knew that he couldn’t make protesting the Vietnam War illegal. Instead, he criminalized marijuana so that he could target the hippies – who were against the war – for drug use rather than for their political views. Same effect, but perfectly legal.
If the government one day decides that you are a problem, they can look at the types of things that you do and either find crimes you didn’t even realize you committed or, absent that, make things you do normally illegal. With effectively perfect knowledge and limitless resources, you could easily be targeted and silenced.
The government having that kind of power should scare everyone.
It starts with “if you’ve got nothing to hide why do you care?” but it can rapidly evolved into “now the government listens to everything and if you say one thing we don’t like it’s off to a black hole for the rest of your life” (see: north korea). Humans have a really shitty habit of abusing power. At its core, I agree with you and in an ideal world that would be the case, but we have *a lot* of really fucked up people who walk among us who, given the right opportunities, will exploit the shit out of others to the point of literal murder.
It is an invasion pf privacy, basically. It is one thing to agree to a company collecting data in order to use their service. It is totally different for a government to covertly collect data on its’ citizens. Why are they collecting the data, what are they using that data for, who gave them permission to collect and who is overseeing what happens with that data?
The problem is that government has no legitimate reason to be collecting information about its citizens through back channel methods like collecting metadata or subscribing to tracking services. If government needs information about its citizens, it just has to ask. (Caveat: obviously that’s not the case everywhere in the world, but in most developed nations that’s the case.)
The reason that we restrict government’s collection and use of data they don’t need is because eventually, inevitably, someone is going to abuse it in a way that causes harm or undermines our faith in our governments. That’s pretty much a constant in life: if you give people power and the means to enrich themselves, they will abuse it. The only difference between a good leader and a bad leader is how long it takes from the time you start the job until the time you abuse it.
So when it comes to government collecting unnecessary information (bad) by unnecessary back channels (double bad) in a way that will be abused to the detriment of the people (triple bad), it’s easier to see why we would oppose it.
It’s basically the “I have nothing to hide argument.” The problem is that governments are not inherently good or what is legal is not inherently morally right (and vice versa). Nor is there any guarantee that their rules will stay the same way.
Think back about the history of your own country. Almost everyone can bring up an example of their country persecuting something that nowadays they do not. Or other way round, their government starting to punish something that it previously did not. Data collection intensifies the threat. You simply don’t know if what is fine now will incriminate you in the future.
Look at Turkey 2016 – authorities used collected data to target thousands of academics, journalists, and civil servants, leading to arrests. Or East Germany before the wall came down – the Stasi used surveillance information to blackmail, harass, and suppress dissidents and ordinary citizens who might have expressed anti-government sentiments. Or South Korea’s blacklist on ordinary citizens used to deny them government services (2016). None of these are too long ago.
You never have a guarantee that this will not happen (again) in any given country. It could currently be happening.
A lot of people distrust that the government uses such data responsibly. There are plenty of cases of governments collecting excessive data on citizens for no good reasons. Many people question why.
For example, NSA Surveillance, Germany’s BND Surveillance, etc. Some people fear that everyone is considered a suspect until proven innocent (see the war on terrorism in the US).
Some people also fear that surveillance stifles freedom of expression. People are more careful when they feel watched. The next question is if this data is stored securely. It could be hacked and abused.
The essential argument is this: By putting faith in the government’s goodwill and competence to handle this sensitive information, we may expose ourselves to risks that far outweigh the intended benefits of security or law enforcement.
[removed]
>…unless you are doing something with malicious intent the government probably (hopefully) doesn’t really care…
the house committee on unamerican activities rounded people up for their private political beliefs and ruined their lives and careers over nothing.
so, yes, the government *does* care and in the most malicious way sometimes.
but if the government has reason to believe that somebody *is* dangerous and requires surveillance they can certainly run that by a judge and get a warrant. it’s not that hard and it’s the law.
If the government knows things about you, it will never forget them.
You may trust the current government, do you trust the government of 10 years in the future?
It’s called the “slippery slope”. And this principle/theory applies to most things in the world.
Sure, we could say “yes” to governments collecting random data on all of its population for “reasons”. But before you know it, they’ll begin using that data to track you. To solve crimes. Or whatever else. So far… not too bad, right?
Well, eventually they’ll use your data against you. “*Oh, you attended a fundraiser for a political candidate that we now claim is an extremist? YOU are not an extremist.”*
They’ll lock your bank accounts. Seize your assets. Whatever, just use your imagination. All because you are “against” *them*.
Remember Edward Snowden? He uncovered truths about the government spying on us. Know what the government did in response? Legalized all of that spying.
So who knows what they’re doing right now that is illegal. But when the whistles start blowing, they’ll have our elected leaders change the laws to make it legal.
*gestures broadly at the bat poop crazy people who get elected to government positions*
Do you really trust *them* to have your best interests in mind when deciding how to use all that data?
Latest Answers