[w4rh4wk5]

> If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

I've always taken issues with this phrase as many people would be lead to believe the opposite as well: If you have something to hide, you have something to fear.

Which further suggests that as soon as there's anything you want to hide, that has to be something criminal.

Of course, this is utter garbage. People _do_ have things to hide, and it is rarely criminal / unlawful.

[gklitz]

Any politician pirring forth this stupid statement needs to be asked if they are willing to submit to having their lives filmed 24/7 with no censorship of anything.

They won’t even let us see their “private” messages to other politicians let alone let us see them neglect their families.

[ben_w]

> If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

Almost all politicians have something to hide, as part of their job. Even fairly low-level politicians get messages from voters which can contain sensitive (i.e. should not be shared) information.

The problems are:

1) those who don't recognise that almost everyone else has this going on, too.

2) those who think that it's OK because the intelligence agencies are the ones gathering it (never mind that the methods enable others to do likewise), and those working in the agencies are above reproach and won't misuse that data (which we know isn't the case).

[JumpCrisscross]

> Any politician pirring forth this stupid statement

Genuine question: who was the last one in America who did? (Article’s “some politicians” link is broken for me.)

Asking because it strikes me as a straw man we, who believe in privacy as a right, enjoying arguing against.

[talldayo]

Does Ashton Kutcher ring a bell? https://fortune.com/europe/2023/09/26/thorn-ashton-kutcher-y...

[JumpCrisscross]

Fair enough. Kutcher is an elevated idiot with an agenda, and I didn’t specify politician.

Is there any evidence of an elected, in America or Europe, using this argument?

[trod123]

This won't work, and they know it so they'll just lie and say yes knowing it can't ever happen. They also have influence and control over this information through the nature of their positions. Look at the recordings that went missing during Watergate.

The reality is those in power must deal with additional threats both foreign and domestic.

Any one of them would say yes, but then claim it would open the country to greater threats if controlled independently (which it does given the sensitivity of the access they have to make decisions), and the mere suggestion continuing this would be unpatriotic since the person suggesting this is opening up the nation to even greater danger. It is not unreasonable.

The Nazi's were clever, and evil, for those who haven't heard this paraphrase, it follows what was said during the Nuremberg trials by Goebbels.

Many people alive today have learned from them. Whether it is to prevent it from happening again (by warning people to action of the subtle indicators), or to follow in their footsteps (to quietly seize power as a demagogue).

Who can know the mind and character of another who only has to lie to get in office then can't be removed for failing to perform. Especially in times where there is little if any credibility or trust left.

[euroderf]

The Truman Show, for the President of the United States, with audio off and faces blurred.

[swores]

No it doesn't imply anything criminal. Many people have things they wish to hide that have nothing to do with being illegal, from reasons for being fired from their last job to the amount of alcohol they're drinking alone at home to nude photos they shared with an ex, to... anything.

There's a huge number of things to be potentially embarrassed about, ranging from things that most other people would say there's no need for embarrassment all the way up to things that could be career- or relationship- ending even though fully legal.

[trod123]

Agreed, and sensitive information can be used to coerce and harass/bully.

Imagine situations where pregnancies and the mere fact that it happened is grounds for the family to throw you out, based on intolerance of their religious beliefs.

Anything that runs contrary to social moors which are no longer cohesive or consistent thanks in large part to marxism (woke/cancel culture) and an undue nihilistic influence, is fair game under critical theory.

There was a big article about 10 years ago (iirc), where as a result of Target's marketing department (data aggregation), the father knew before the daughter that she was pregnant based on her shopping habits (which they correlated to pregnancy).

[machine_coffee]

Perfect timing for this article after Putin's Russia just forced Apple to drop as many VPNs as possible from the App store in ru.

The aim obviously being to have an easier time surveilling the populace whilst also denying them access to any information not spewed by the Party.

It can't be long now until Moscow has a big sign that reads 'War is Love' plastered on some nameless building.

edit:typo.