If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
A coworker of mine and I got into an argument about that yesterday with respect to its application to security cameras being put everywhere outside by the government, such as the surveillance system in London. He justified it in part on the idea that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Then he got upset when I said that I assume he has no problem with the government doing the same to his house.
Naturally, he said that there is a constitutional right, blah, blah.
To which I just said, "if you have nothing to hide, then you have no excuse for denying the government the ability to watch what you are doing inside your home. If you aren't breaking the law inside your home, then you have nothing to hide. Otherwise your home is a haven of criminality. That's what 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' ultimately leads up to. You can't just carve out an exception that makes you happy because you are not comfortable with where you argument naturally goes."
I'm not sure it went over well when I bluntly said that this is a matter of principle, and that you cannot justify legislating things in a way that are cozy for you, and convenient for avoiding the areas where you don't want to be disturbed by the state.
That is the non-selfish way to think about law. To not be a selfish person vis a vis the law, you have to actually think expansively enough to figure out how to maximize the protections for everyone, not just yourself.
L'etat non c'est vouz.
A coworker of mine and I got into an argument about that yesterday with respect to its application to security cameras being put everywhere outside by the government, such as the surveillance system in London. He justified it in part on the idea that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Then he got upset when I said that I assume he has no problem with the government doing the same to his house.
Naturally, he said that there is a constitutional right, blah, blah.
To which I just said, "if you have nothing to hide, then you have no excuse for denying the government the ability to watch what you are doing inside your home. If you aren't breaking the law inside your home, then you have nothing to hide. Otherwise your home is a haven of criminality. That's what 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' ultimately leads up to. You can't just carve out an exception that makes you happy because you are not comfortable with where you argument naturally goes."
I'm not sure it went over well when I bluntly said that this is a matter of principle, and that you cannot justify legislating things in a way that are cozy for you, and convenient for avoiding the areas where you don't want to be disturbed by the state.
That is the non-selfish way to think about law. To not be a selfish person vis a vis the law, you have to actually think expansively enough to figure out how to maximize the protections for everyone, not just yourself.
L'etat non c'est vouz.
Wonder how he feels about a law that turns the tables and suddenly makes criminals out of previously non-criminal acts or posessions?
What upsets me the most is not that he said that. It's that I used to say it myself. Man I was dumb back then. =)
Dude, I used to be a hardcore leftist, and I don't mean a liberal. We are all dumb "back then."
He generally wants the government to keep its hands off of his stuff, but is one of those people who expects the government to maximize his safety in public. Hence my getting on his case for carving out exceptions that just so happen to conveniently fit his life, but not others'.
"We are all dumb "back then.""
I also used to think this way, back when I was a brainwashed, flag-waving, gummint-can-do-no-wrong kind of teenager. Reagan was my man, and the Commies had to be defeated at all costs. Now I know that there are more dangerous enemies to our country, and they don't have to speak Russian.
"'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' "
Personally, I love this phrase. It's used to bully people into accepting whatever infringement on their liberties by the State; as if only criminals could object to Big Brother snooping on them.
They are missing the point, and you are right on it. Allowing an infringement of rights on some issues just lets the camel's nose in the tent for downstream infringements. After all, if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear from government agents, right?
"...but is one of those people who expects the government to maximize his safety in public."
And that is the problem. We need to stop outsourcing our personal security to others and take responsibility for ourselves. The state can be just as much an enemy as a friend. I can take care of myself, and trust myself to guard my own security way better than some cop who just comes along after it's all over and cleans up the mess.
This guy needs to recall that the State's power automatically flows from the business end of a gun. One day, that gun may be pointed toward him, and I doubt he'll be so supportive then.
The idea of the "intrinsic goodness of man" is a large part of what is holding back the ability to make progress on these issues because people are largely convinced that no matter how bad things look, all you are seeing is the bad apples. In reality, it's usually like an iceberg, and what you see is only just the most visible ten percent.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
I don't mean to sound uncouth, but if the above is true, none of us has a reason for concern about the airport screener who decides to have you hauled into a back room, where he breaks out the vaseline & rubber glove & purrs: "Bend over. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear."
And as you painfully hobble away afterwards--the sole individual in the airport walking bow-legged--you'll understand the valuable lesson you've learned about "looking suspicious."
Hey, if you don't have a condom filled with cocaine or explosive material up your butt, then what do you stand to lose, right?