> “If you’re not doing anything illegal, why worry about it?” said long-time Jacumba resident Allen Stanks, 70.
I'm going to grind my teeth into a fine powder.
> “If you’re not doing anything illegal, why worry about it?” said long-time Jacumba resident Allen Stanks, 70.
I'm going to grind my teeth into a fine powder.
This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think. Making it easy to catch bad guys is enough reason. I don't know how to effectively convince someone that the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about. I feel like it should be self-evident, that law enforcement and liberty are mutually exclusive, and that we have things like warrants to allow that infringement on liberty in very narrow circumstances. Dragnet surveillance is warrant-less evidence gathering.
> This is perhaps a more common opinion than you think.
Oh, I know it's a common opinion. That's why I'm so upset about it.
> the ease of law enforcement comes at the expense of liberty, which so many of the aforementioned opinion-holders also claim to be concerned about.
Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
>Because they're convinced that because they have nothing to hide, the law will never turn against them.
Yeah, this is a tough one to counter for me. Trying to identify a specific thing they do that may become of interest to a specific abuse of law enforcement.
The Jews in Amsterdam had nothing to hide ... until they did.
Do you give everybody your tax returns? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your phone records? No? Then you have something to hide.
Do you give everybody your web history? No? Then you have something to hide.
etc.
> Do you give everybody
The easy counter-argument to this, which Mr. Stanks alludes to, is that there's a difference between giving everyone data, and giving law enforcement data.
But Jews-in-Amsterdam is a pretty good example.
I mean, one thing you can look at is news stories about the police grabbing the wrong person, trying to find someone who's as much like them as possible - but any example can be rationalized away.
[dead]
It is self-evident, and they are doublethinking. You can test this by telling them that police should be required to wear always-on body cams. See how they react to that.
> “Everyone is talking about privacy, OK. Stop putting everything on Facebook. ‘Here’s a picture of my food.’ Who cares?” said Stanks.
Lol, this is just an old guy that wants to say something, _anything_ to the world
An old guy who doesn't understand the difference between the state surveilling everything you do, and you volunteering some photographs to the world.
Just ask him to show you his bank accounts / unrestricted access to phone / camera in bedroom. It is always funny to see these people bend into pretzels trying to justify why you should not see how much money is on their bank accounts while you are just repeating their own mantra that if they did not do anything illegal, why they are worried about it?
Yeah ask this guy how he’d feel if a different party were in power and doing this.
An extra-ominous comment with the numbers in your username.
The answer is always "because law enforcement is usually doing something illegal"
"You're in public space, you can't assume any kind of privacy here. Just don't go out."