[identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

(no subject)

Date: 13/6/13 15:04 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dexeron.livejournal.com
We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that.

Yes we do, if the government ever tells the newspaper writer that he can't do that, or passes a law stating that the newspaper can't do that.

(no subject)

Date: 13/6/13 15:45 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com
We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that in order to know that they can.

(no subject)

Date: 13/6/13 17:35 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com
We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that in order to know that they can.

Really? So if a newspaper prints an editorial that reveals information that is sensitive to national security, like revealing a double agent (which has happened), or presents a credible threat to the President (which is a crime), We the Amateurs are going to be the ones who decide the liability? I don't think so.

(no subject)

Date: 13/6/13 17:54 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] notmrgarrison.livejournal.com
See as an example a newspaper writing an editorial critical of the president.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031 

Summary