[minerva23]

> if you have something to hide

Most people don't realize that most people have something to hide. The USA has so many laws on its books. Many of which are outright bizarre[0] and some of which normal people might normally break[1].

And that's only counting current/past laws. It wasn't that long ago a US President was suggesting all Muslims should be forced to carry special IDs[2]. If you have a documented history being a Muslim, it could be harder to fight a non-compliance charge.

[0] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-a-law-where-you-can-t-put...

[1] https://unusualkentucky.blogspot.com/2008/05/weird-kentucky-...

[2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-muslims-id/

[kingcharles]

I always liked this one I found in the Illinois statutes - it basically criminalizes every person online:

Barratry. If a person wickedly and willfully excites and stirs up actions or quarrels between the people of this State with a view to promote strife and contention, he or she is guilty of the petty offense of common barratry[.]

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...

[akira2501]

Barratry typically implies that this is specifically being done with lawsuits and other legal instruments, not in the general case.

[raxxorrax]

There is a renaissance of such laws regarding causing offense. That would basically be anybody whose face you don't like? I wonder how much considerations go into suggestions like this. Side effects should normally hit your face like a truck.

[president]

Did you even read the snopes article you referenced before making what seems like a definitive claim about how Trump was suggesting muslims carry special IDs? Because Snope's own rating is "Mixture" of truth and false and if you read the assessment, it is grasping at straws to even make that conclusion.

[kf6nux]

Yes, "mixed" means you have to read the nuance. I think I accurately captured the reality. If you have a correction to offer, please do.

EDIT: Ultimately, the nuance in that history is not relevant to the point that criminal law changes to include new categories in unexpected ways.

[president]

Sure, I can accept there is some nuance but the phrasing and definitive manner of your original statement is very misleading. I'm not the biggest fan of the guy but casually mentioning that he suggested the idea when in actuality it was an idea posed by a reporter is bad faith in my opinion.

[hunterb123]

> “Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,” he added. “We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

> “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump continued. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

That's all he said to the interviewer. The interviewer was asking the hypothetical and suggested the special identification! He wouldn't take the bait, so since he didn't answer the hypothetical they said "he wouldn't deny it" and wrote the campaign of hit piece articles anyway. Whatever response they got they would have wrote that same piece. If he would have answered one way they would have quoted out of context. Since he responded generically it's obviously drummed up. The fact check is hilarious. "Mixed", lol.

Never answer a hypothetical, it's always a trap.

[daqhris]

Your last sentence just made me freak out thinking that I've previously done such stupidity in front of a "law officer". I never for one second thought it could be a trap; I was overly willing to cooperate and truthfully respond to a "theoretical" inquiry. Damn, it hurts in retrospective.

[rootusrootus]

> That's all he said to the interviewer

And then the next day, he clarified:

Reporter: "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?"

Trump: "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems."

And then he tried to backpedal. Decided it was a watch list, not a database, etc. Basically the usual shtick of his where he tries to say everything and nothing at the same time.

[hunterb123]

Again that's a generic response:

> There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems

Beyond databases. What does that mean? That could be analog systems, that could be anything not stored in a computer.

Nothing to do with identification which would need a database. It's a generic answer to avoid a hypothetical. It's a nonanswer.

He said nothing, not everything. You are attributing the reporters question to him. The reporter is posing the hypothetical that they created in the first place by the initial interview.

My main point was hypotheticals are always trap (unless among friends!), but that's a great example of an obvious one.

The usual shtick is to say nothing, because the journalistic usual shtick is to ask gotcha hypotheticals.

[danShumway]

You're kind of quibbling over details. The below quote is already bad enough:

> "We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

I already do not trust the person who has said that. Does it really matter if he proposed a full-fledged ID system? He still proposed monitoring mosques. He still proposed surveillance based on religious identity.

The correct answer to that question, "should Muslims be subject to special scrutiny" is a simple "no". I don't really get the debate about hypotheticals; this a question that does have a straightforward, right answer. And the implications here in regards to surveillance and ordinary people having stuff to hide -- those implications are all the same regardless of whether or not Trump actually proposed a literal database.

He was open to increased surveillance on Americans based on their religious identity, he didn't immediately shut the idea down.

[hunterb123]

Details are important. The media campaigns are claiming he wanted Muslim identification, a system THEY proposed in their hypothetical. When he didn't confirm they said "he wouldn't deny it" as their proof of support.

> The below quote is already bad enough. He still proposed surveillance based on religious identity.

He said nothing about citizens or monitoring them based on religious identity. He said look at mosques, that's all. Mosques are often the target of attacks.

https://search.brave.com/search?q=mosque+coordinated+attack&...

[danShumway]

Are you proposing that increased surveillance of mosques is to protect them? That requires a certain level of imagination given the full context of the quote:

> "Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy," he added. "We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

> "We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely," Trump continued. "We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

----

And once again, it kind of doesn't matter. An increased focus on monitoring places of worship is monitoring people based on their religious identity. I don't know a single Christian who would argue to me that monitoring churches isn't the same thing as monitoring Christians.

Mosques and churches are not abstract concepts that are divorced from the people inside of them. When you monitor an institution, you are necessarily monitoring the people inside of it, and it is reasonable for them to be concerned about the government taking an interest in their religious-identity. To argue otherwise requires someone to completely divorce religious identity from the practice of religion, and that's just not a reasonable argument to make.

----

> Details are important.

Not in the context of the original statement, "ordinary people often do have something to hide, and should care about privacy." Look, whatever, you trust Trump. You shouldn't, but you do. Fine.

Do you trust Biden? Do you trust the current government not to attempt to monitor you based on your vaccine status?

You're fighting over the idea that "your guy" wouldn't surveil ordinary people, but this also kind of doesn't matter because your guy isn't in the Whitehouse right now, and I can guarantee you that Republicans are never going to have permanent power over the government. No party wins forever. You have as much reason as anyone else to care about personal privacy, why are you fighting over who specifically is a threat? Does it change anything about the overall privacy debate?

[rootusrootus]

> Again that's a generic response

Like I said, he always manages to say exactly the right things so the people who support him will read between the lines, but leave just enough ambiguity so those same people can quibble constantly over whether that was what he really meant.

> hypotheticals are always trap

He could have just said "No." Or "I have no such plans at this time." if he wanted to sound like a typical politician. His circumlocution is legendary, because it allows everyone to believe what they want to believe. Politicians all have this problem, but Trump elevates it to a whole new level.