[adaml_623]

I've got an answer for all the people who say, "I've got nothing to hide".

That might be true but you would have to be naive to think that the information that could be gathered from these NSA activities would not be misused by people.

Imagine an up and coming politician. Squeaky clean but was friends with a few people who got prosecuted for drug dealing. Those useful NSA phone records could easily lead to the press asking the young idealist if he often hung around with drug users. Irrelevant and potentially career ending.

Civil rights campaigners who could be accused of having an affair because of call records.

A journalist investigating a corrupt politician... is he a terrorist sympathizer... comb through the records.

You may have nothing to hide but often the people trying to improve your country for the better and root out corruption and crime will be more vulnerable to this. Because the corrupt individuals in positions of power will not respect the laws and procedures and will use this information for evil.

Thoughts?

[swombat]

The second problem with "nothing to hide" is that it's really "nothing to hide based on today's laws". Laws change. Things become illegal or looked down upon that were previously just fine. What you did with a peaceful conscience today could be used to throw you in jail in 20 years.

The third problem is that due to the complexity of the penal code, this is already the case. You have already done stuff in the last 10 years, that you didn't think was illegal, but somewhere in the tens of thousands of pages of the penal code someone can find a reason to throw you in jail if they have enough information about you. As Richelieu put it, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - the NSA has billions of lines about you. They can hang you a million times over.

[adaml_623]

I agree with you 100% but I'm trying to formulate an argument that works on people who really believe that there is no way that 'they' could ever break the law and will never do anything that might make 'someone' want to pick on them. I want to demonstrate to them that there are other people who are doing important things for society and those people need to be protected too.

[lifeformed]

Everyone keeps saying that everyone has committed a jail-able offense if you just look hard enough, but no one has any examples. I'm not denying that it's true, I just have no response if someone says, "like what?"

Are there any examples of crimes that many people have probably committed? Maybe software piracy, but isn't that just a fine? And I hope that isn't the only example.

[286c8cb04bda]

> Are there any examples of crimes that many people have probably committed?

Have you ever ordered anything off Amazon? Did you declare and pay the appropriate use taxes for what you bought? Did you ever discuss with anyone that buying things off Amazon meant there was no tax?

Depending on where you live, that's tax fraud and conspiracy to commit. If you had the discussion over email or on a message board, then it's an inter-state crime...

[chrismarlow9]

http://ask.metafilter.com/55124/What-laws-do-noncriminals-co...

http://www.dumblaws.com/random-laws

They've basically "al caponed" the entire US. If they can't get you on one thing, they'll get you on another. Oddly enough, taxes are probably something everyone has broken the law on. Do you really report everything to the last penny? No? Oh, well theres tax evasion.

[nsxwolf]

Finding your kid's drug stash and punishing him by flushing it down the toilet is probably possession. I certainly would rather it remain private than find out via government prosecution.

[triplesec]

Watch this classic lawyer's talk, and understand that "nothing to hide" is still no protection against talking ti authorities, even non-malicious ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Martijn]

I wonder if this is also true if you are a foreigner visiting the US.

And I wonder if this also works for the Dutch police.

[286c8cb04bda]

> I wonder if this is also true if you are a foreigner visiting the US.

It won't work on Customs and Immigration. When you're talking to them you're not "in the US" yet. After that, yes, the privilege against self-incrimination is granted to everyone in the United States, citizen or not.

> And I wonder if this also works for the Dutch police.

The privilege in question is considered an essential component of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. Most other countries based on English common law have something similar. You'll have to look for parallel support within the Dutch legal system.

[adventured]

That refrain, which is based in fear, requires but one simple response: nothing to hide, according to whom?

That invalidates their entire premise instantly, by pointing out that it is not their judgment that matters as to whether they have anything to hide.

People say that they have nothing to hide - in response to things like the NSA spying scandals - because they're terrified of confrontation. To say almost anything else is to challenge the government's authority, to say to them: you have no right to violate my constitutional rights and I refuse to accept it.

When you see someone cowering in fear behind that statement, remember what their mental state of mind likely is and re-approach how you discuss the spying with them, otherwise you'll find they will just turtle. It's far easier for most people to back down from confrontation than to challenge such extreme authority (the US Govt.).

[adaml_623]

You're correct that they are acting like a turtle. I was trying to re-frame the question of spying so that it didn't involve them personally.

[chandler]

Let's disregard the blackmail aspect of nothing-to-hide.

Consider that lobbyists & bureaucrats now have the capability (prevented only by policy) to snoop the past and present communications of elected officials.

Imagine your squeaky clean politician, whose friends are equally squeaky clean. How effective will this politician be when at negotiations, hearings, etc, his opponents have already studied his history and relationships? They know where he likes to eat, where he's been on vacation, where his dog goes to the vet. They know how the talks are going, they know which strategies are working, and which lines of thought aren't.

In short, they know which ideas to push, and which ideas to back away from.

This politician will be both ineffective at representing his constituents, as well as unable to point to why this is the case. And he's never going to cry out "blackmail!"

[Thrymr]

"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime"

Who hasn't broken some minor law at some time? Selective enforcement and total information awareness on the part of the enforcers are a dangerous combination.