Knowingly Consenting to Big brother: More or Less Abuse?
 

Main question: If every single member of a given country without exception were fine with an invasion of privacy by the government, do you think that government would be more or less likely to abuse that power? Could there even be abuse?

I was debating with a friend of mine recently about the root causes of eavesdropping abuses. Surly, in the real world most people do value their privacy and don't want to be checked on by the government simply for no reason, but there are some people that truly don't mind; the "I've got nothing to hide" people. I admit that I often don't factor these people into discussions about things like the UK's CCTV network or the US domestic spying program simply because I guess that they don't particularly mind, the victims are those that want their privacy.

In the end, I wasn't really able to come up with a satisfactory question simply because I have trouble putting myself in the "I've got nothing to hide" people's frame of mind. Maybe I'm biased, I dunno. Any thoughts on the matter

Good question, honestly I'm not sure it would really change anything either way nor am I sure that the "I have nothing to hide" crowd is the minority. 10 years ago I would have said that nobody would be so crazy as to have such a cavalier attitude towards spying or invasion of privacy...now not so much.

Anyway not to get off track I would have to argue that aside from worrying about votes the very last thing a govt would take into account is the populations views on the subject be they for it or against it. Although I suppose if the citizens were overwhelmingly in favor of it it would be less difficult to put forth and carry out as well as delivering a tidy bundle of votes in the process.

Otto, this isn't about our definition of liberty, it's about theirs.
There are certainly more of them than I previously suspected. I don't think they're in the majority, though. At most, just guessing, I'd say something like 20%.
I have to assume part of why the PTB put these kinds of things in place is a lack of trust in addition to their hunger for power. They may be indescribably corrupt, but they have their own sets of reasoning skills and emotional reactions just like anyone else.

Absolutely Willravel. Its a scary thing but at times I do catch myself thinking "well it is for our own safety" before slamming my head into a wall and trying to destroy what ever part of my brain came up with such a thought!

I guess an interesting take on the subject is weather or not a society can really benefit in enough positive ways from such invasions of privacy. No matter how corrupt, illegal or just plain awful it may be can the good out weigh the bad?

Quick edit: Pertaining to the above question if society believes the answer is yes have we gone down a road that we can never return from?

There's a set of science fiction novels written by Robert Sawyer, the Neanderthal Parallax, that supposes an alternate reality where neanderthals survived instead of homo sapiens and their society developed without considerations for privacy. Every second of every day of the neanderthals' lives is recorded and kept in a public depository which is protected and cannot be tampered with. The theory the author presents is that if the everyone is monitored, from the high school dropout pumping gas all the way up to the highest ranking government or business authority, 24/7, and the recording technology is automatic and cannot be tampered with (what I find the hardest to swallow), taking advantage of what would otherwise be private information would become nearly irrelevant. In other words, it would level the lack-of-privacy playing field.

Mind you, this is all quite fantastic and clearly unrealistic, but it does make one wonder.

Very interesting, I've been looking for some new books to check out lately and I think you just suggested some great reading.

In a way I do think some of his theories are in play right now although I would argue inadvertently (not paranoid enough yet to think of it as big brother). Credit Cards for example produce a record of everything we've purchase, library cards track everything we've checked out, High School and College transcripts. Although the above is generally private it is amazing how much of our lives are recorded and kept on file somewhere. It seems without reading the books the Author really makes a good point about privacy in modern times. Interesting.

Fair warning, there's some hanky-panky between a neanderthal and a human woman in the books.

This stems from all the times that people were advised to 'consent' and 'submit' to police detainment and investigation. Why would you NOT want to help police do their job? They make you and society safer. they are there to protect you. and on and on......

but don't dare do anything other than 'wish it was not so', because if you do anything like stand up for yourself or your rights, why then you're just another wanna be domestic terrorist.

at some point in this life, people are going to have to accept the reality that they LET their government and it's agents get powerhungry and do something about it.

I was worried dksuddeth wasn't going to read from his manifesto in this thread. crisis averted.

If everyone were ok with an invasion of privacy, how could it be an abuse? It would be a sad state of affairs, but if everyone consents there is by definition no abuse.

my point is proven well.

trust me, derwood. you would not want to read my 'manifesto'. It would shake the very ground you walk on.

You're not talking about the same people I'm talking about. I mean people that actually do not have a sense of importance attached to privacy at all. I'm not talking about Bush supporters that were trying to excuse domestic spying.

are you really trying to classify me in the latter? ME will? Do you truly believe I supported our previous administrations domestic spying violations?

This is a bullshit statement. Cleverly posed but it's rationale based on an outdated morale.

/derail.

I'm in the number of "I have nothing to hide" but I have to say I do believe that privacy is a right and we are all entitled to it. On the other hand, if it wasn't for NSA's echelon programme many, many things would be broken in this country. Taking our security for granted based on an ideal poised to aid natural selection is ... can't put it any other way ... dumb as fuck!

As far as the OP goes, I believe this power would be abused anyway just as any trickle down system wears through cracks:
- Police have often been accused (sometimes rightfully so) of being corrupt ...
- CEO's have always stolen ...
- Judges have been paid off ...

Key note is, they're all human. All these enforcers of the establishment are human. Only a machine (Not Artificial Intelligence) can uphold the law to it's entirety.

laws are very simple, or at least they would be if we didn't flip flop on when humans can have bad judgement and when they can't. all one needs to do is follow the plain written text, but I understand alot of people think plain simple text is outdated as well.

Please reread what I wrote. I'm obviously not talking about you, but I'm rather trying to explain that people who don't value privacy don't all do so because of some political cognitive bias (like Bush folks that were defending the warrantless wiretapping), some actually don't value privacy at all as a philosophy. The same way you believe in the right to be armed and I believe in equality, they believe it's fine that their business be public. All of it.

I reread what you wrote. I also reread what I wrote. I'm not finding where either one of us made reference to specific categories of people and privacy rights, other than mine about being labeled a domestic terrorist.

IMO, it shouldn't matter. Privacy rights are just that......rights. It shouldn't make a difference about being applied in, or for, certain situations that the 'right' can be termed 'not absolute' anymore.......but since we no longer live in those times, all rights must be relative.

maybe most people are that ignorant of what we once had over a century ago that they must now be herded and maintained by the black robed tyrants behind the bench, but if thats the case, then we're all in some trouble.

Yes, government would abuse that power, and has. There are those who would waive their rights and tell everybody everything they know; and not only that, they want everybody else to waive their rights also.

I believe in Article Four of the Bill of Rights, and respect the privacy rights of others also.

Big Brother who? Google?

Many "rights" were never absolute......and the world is a bit more complex and dangerous than a century ago.

IMO, the checks and balances provided for in the U.S. Constitution are as good, if not better, than anywhere else in the world in balancing individual privacy rights with the government's primary role of protecting the life and property of all.

I would agree that the tilt since 9/11 has been more towards security at the expense of privacy...some of the excesses of which (but not enough) has been rolled back in the last year.

On the whole, the system is working as intended,,,and the "people" still have the last word if enough chose to speak out.

which apparently justifies the liberty for security mode.

you can show where the government has a duty to protect the life and property of citizens? I'd like to see it, because I can bring up plenty of examples where the courts have specifically said that the government does not have such a duty.


really? really?