The nazi loved the "nothing to hide". What better than all your information, like religion, nicely written down in official records if you want to suddenly round up one specific group of people. Or DEI wanting to deport a certain group, and DOGE doing their best to suck up all information on everybody. You may have nothing to fear right now, but you never know who's going to be in office soon.
You may have nothing to fear right now, but you never know who’s going to be in office soon.
The way I always explain it to people - take any additional government power or access to information you either don't care about or actively support. Now imagine whoever you oppose/hate the most taking office and trying to use that against your interests. Are you still OK with them having that power? Same principle applies regardless of what power or who's pushing for it.
It's like due process - you don't want any category of alleged violation not to be subject to due process, and if you don't understand why then it's time to wrongfully accuse you of doing that so you understand the problem.
Like those people that signed up for DNA sequencing for heritage research. Now that info is going to be sold.
The problem is it could be used to discriminate for health insurance or other nefarious reasons
I still think DOGE is just feeding all that information to Palantir, and everything else is a pretext to that goal. They want an AI embedded directly into the government, making a large dependency on it, and bypassing checks and balances quickly has allowed that to happen.
"The early Internet’s dissociative opportunities actually encouraged me and those of my generation to change our most deeply held opinions, instead of just digging in and defending them when challenged. This ability to reinvent ourselves meant that we never had to close our minds by picking sides, or close ranks out of fear of doing irreparable harm to our reputations. Mistakes that were swiftly punished but swiftly rectified allowed both the community and the “offender” to move on. To me, and to many, this felt like freedom." ~ Permanent Record, Snowden.
fascism is capitalism showing its teeth, like what trump is doing more overtly now
AFAIK that is not the definition of fascism
But I've seen a TikTok of someone who is studying politcal doctrines (IDR if their level was Major or PHD) and what is currently going on was ticking off all the boxes
My response to this is usually "Do you have curtains?"
Very late edit: I have found it very effective. It causes pause for thought because everyone values privacy, they just find it hard to picture themselves needing it. Curtains.
My response is similar, usually the good old 'Do you shut the door when you shit?'.
When we start getting specific, I'll often try and frame data harvesting in a much more visceral way. If they say they don't care that xyz keeps track of everyone they talk to, I ask them to imagine an actual person standing behind them, making notes on a clipboard about every interaction they have with someone, and how that would make them feel.
One of the things I warn people about privacy is that it's not about what they might find, it's about what they might pretend to find.
Plenty of dirty cops plant evidence. Who's to say they don't like someone and keep a flash drive full of Cheese Pizza to plant on their computer. Usually that kind of logic gets people on board more easily.
You will find the quote in this book that predates Nazi Germany
Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends—people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear."
Which country? Plenty of countries have at least a nominal right to privacy, but it doesn't end up meaning much when US companies own your country's communications platforms.
Weird how Edward Snowden is basically a Boddhisatwa and Julian Assange
Defining someone a Bodhisattva is complex. Snowden & Assange acted with potential benefit & harm. True Bodhisattvas act from pure compassion & wisdom, embodying equanimity. Their actions offer reflection on truth & consequences.
Exposing truth can often get people killed, especially if the liars are in the government, want to kill witnesses or rats, or at least make their lives hell for betraying the state. Depending on the severity, livelihoods are often at stake. That's why very few people engage in whistleblowing. They're aware that it will not get better for them.
Snowden's disclosures, while aiming for transparency, risked national security, compromised sources, strained relations, & potentially enabled misuse of info. Buddhist principles emphasize avoiding harm & maintaining order, aspects potentially impacted by his actions. A balanced view acknowledges both benefit & risk.
Maintaining order in this context would mean letting some people harm other people’s privacy though.
You're right to question "order" at the expense of privacy. Buddhist principles highlight interdependence & ethical action. Security shouldn't erode fundamental rights. Privacy & security are interconnected, not opposing forces.
termights replies to you make me agree with your original statement. any harm was to things that are themselves overall harmful. Now that I look at it, it feels like between what we saw with snowden and schwartz it was 2013 when I really realized things are really really messed up.
I'm gonna guess a whole lot of flustered backpedaling amounting to not a lot of anything, but I'm willing to be surprised if someone wants to dig up the video.
I don't think this image shows her being in a position to backpedal from. I see her providing him with a platform to counter some points that were made elsewhere; she has not necessarily taken a position one way or the other.
I meant backpedaling in the journalistic way of 'Oh you seem to actually know more about what you're talking about than I do and have a lot to say on the subject, I should, uh, redirect to a different topic where I can catch you out for that sick sound bite' or whatever. Maybe that's not what was going on in that interview, Iono, I haven't seen it.
I have "nothing to hide" but I STILL like privacy tyvm. Hence I'll shit in public with the stall door closed, and not disclose my wank schedule on Facebook
I would actually love to compromise on this. If the USA could fix it's democracy then I think non-military interpersonal communications might be due for judge/attorney warranted oversight, but as for actual personal files, devices, and filesystems I think the process of obtaining such warrants needs to be much more restrictive.
Unfortunately my options are between anarchy and oligarchy, which both fucking suck.
The fediverse condemns free speech. The fediverse bans unapproved opinions and wrong think, proving that the fediverse is an enemy to the principals of Edward Snowden. But it's fun to be on here one in awhile knowing fhe right thing to say that forces people to come undone and expose their true personality. When you through a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that helps is the one you hit, so it makes for a fun time to say the right thing for setting off everybody and watxh in the insults come in, it means that I hit my mark
The fediverse imposes censorship through de-federation, as opposed to being decentralized that only requires protocol configuration with any software designed to communicate through said protocols. Fediverse requires approval before accepting messages from other servers
The idea is that people can block what they don't want to see. Some users/communities/instances are more open, and others are more closed off. There's nothing stopping you from finding a place that aligns with what you want
If someone doesn't want to interact with you, you're not going to accomplish anything by forcing them to interact with you.
I'm all for individual users block who they want. In fact I emcourage it so users onlyvsee what they want. But when server admins defederate and divide the service into sections, users have no say anymore and will have to user mutiple accounts simultaneously across different servers to check posts. The line about telling people to start their own server is a cop out to avoid tue fractoring and censorship, but then to try to promote fediverse as an alternative to th bg names, that's all a lie and a conjob when severs run by infants block users talking to adults who do not react emotionally to reading words on a screen. In stead, the fediverse seems to be only for people who have identical opinions on every subject and every contrary view gets dogpiled in an attempt to beat into submittiom.
I can say something about people who live a certain lifestyle and have my account deleted. Others can say the exact opposite as me and they get praise and posting gets promoted. It makes the fediverse look like a cult of freakshows who are terrrified to go out to public places and debate people in the street, but come on here to escape humans who don't agree where everybody conforms to a specific view and everything else is deleted or banned. Given the way fediverse people complain about Twitter, a pattern emerges that their complaints is the fact the Twitter allows opinions that they can't tolerate so they stay in fediverse where they are protected from reading words. Those people will never achieve much for jobs or careers where co-workers can express offensive or insulting views and the company can't do anything because they can't fire someone for an opinion, so they will have to wok with people who don't support their views or reject their beliefs. How will people on here ever handle having children when their own kids can grow up to reject their views but have to maintain a close relationship despite their child's disapproval of what they believe?
Find one single instance where users are free to reject or critcize religion, reject trans people, criticize conservatives, and criticize leftists, all on a single instance.
People just don't want to be around a bigot. Simple as. Social harms that might come to you for espousing views that aren't acceptable to the surrounding community isn't censorship, it's just social rejection on legitimate grounds. Fix your heart or GTFO.
If that were true, speaking with strangers in public places would not contradict fediverse postings. It seems that being outside talking with strangers face to face closers aligns, but not identical, to what's on Twitter than every single fediverse service. If you can't be friends with someone who doesn't accept what you believe but has other interests away from the internet, not being online, that is lack of intellectual curiosity. Someone, I'm not suggesting you, who can't spend an afternoon with people without checking phone for new messages lives in misery 10 out of 10 times.
The nazi loved the "nothing to hide". What better than all your information, like religion, nicely written down in official records if you want to suddenly round up one specific group of people. Or DEI wanting to deport a certain group, and DOGE doing their best to suck up all information on everybody. You may have nothing to fear right now, but you never know who's going to be in office soon.
The way I always explain it to people - take any additional government power or access to information you either don't care about or actively support. Now imagine whoever you oppose/hate the most taking office and trying to use that against your interests. Are you still OK with them having that power? Same principle applies regardless of what power or who's pushing for it.
It's like due process - you don't want any category of alleged violation not to be subject to due process, and if you don't understand why then it's time to wrongfully accuse you of doing that so you understand the problem.
Like those people that signed up for DNA sequencing for heritage research. Now that info is going to be sold. The problem is it could be used to discriminate for health insurance or other nefarious reasons
I still think DOGE is just feeding all that information to Palantir, and everything else is a pretext to that goal. They want an AI embedded directly into the government, making a large dependency on it, and bypassing checks and balances quickly has allowed that to happen.
Exactly what is happening now
"The early Internet’s dissociative opportunities actually encouraged me and those of my generation to change our most deeply held opinions, instead of just digging in and defending them when challenged. This ability to reinvent ourselves meant that we never had to close our minds by picking sides, or close ranks out of fear of doing irreparable harm to our reputations. Mistakes that were swiftly punished but swiftly rectified allowed both the community and the “offender” to move on. To me, and to many, this felt like freedom." ~ Permanent Record, Snowden.
Well yeah, things have definitely changed a bit since Snowden gave this interview and they weren't saints even before that.
What is your definition of Fascist, here?
It seems to get tossed around at everything, these days. Not a fan if the NSA either, nor the Patriot Act, either.
AFAIK that is not the definition of fascism
But I've seen a TikTok of someone who is studying politcal doctrines (IDR if their level was Major or PHD) and what is currently going on was ticking off all the boxes
My response to this is usually "Do you have curtains?"
Very late edit: I have found it very effective. It causes pause for thought because everyone values privacy, they just find it hard to picture themselves needing it. Curtains.
My response is similar, usually the good old 'Do you shut the door when you shit?'.
When we start getting specific, I'll often try and frame data harvesting in a much more visceral way. If they say they don't care that xyz keeps track of everyone they talk to, I ask them to imagine an actual person standing behind them, making notes on a clipboard about every interaction they have with someone, and how that would make them feel.
One of the things I warn people about privacy is that it's not about what they might find, it's about what they might pretend to find.
Plenty of dirty cops plant evidence. Who's to say they don't like someone and keep a flash drive full of Cheese Pizza to plant on their computer. Usually that kind of logic gets people on board more easily.
He misattributes that quote
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1558
You will find the quote in this book that predates Nazi Germany
So the quote was about the American secret service?
Yes
Here’s a scientific dissertation on how and why that phrase sucks: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
It’s so easy to use but very hard to fights against. Worst case of bullshit.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear-a-line-used-by-joseph
Feels like out of all the amendements, the 4th is the most violated one in US history.
We desperately need a constitutional right to privacy, but I doubt that will happen in my or our country's lifetime.
Which country? Plenty of countries have at least a nominal right to privacy, but it doesn't end up meaning much when US companies own your country's communications platforms.
I'll let you guess, although you probably only need one guess.
Weird how Edward Snowden is basically a Boddhisatwa and Julian Assange
Defining someone a Bodhisattva is complex. Snowden & Assange acted with potential benefit & harm. True Bodhisattvas act from pure compassion & wisdom, embodying equanimity. Their actions offer reflection on truth & consequences.
Where is the harm?
Exposing truth can often get people killed, especially if the liars are in the government, want to kill witnesses or rats, or at least make their lives hell for betraying the state. Depending on the severity, livelihoods are often at stake. That's why very few people engage in whistleblowing. They're aware that it will not get better for them.
Self harm then? I think it's not only fine but also heroic.
Snowden's disclosures, while aiming for transparency, risked national security, compromised sources, strained relations, & potentially enabled misuse of info. Buddhist principles emphasize avoiding harm & maintaining order, aspects potentially impacted by his actions. A balanced view acknowledges both benefit & risk.
Maintaining order in this context would mean letting some people harm other people's privacy though.
You're right to question "order" at the expense of privacy. Buddhist principles highlight interdependence & ethical action. Security shouldn't erode fundamental rights. Privacy & security are interconnected, not opposing forces.
termights replies to you make me agree with your original statement. any harm was to things that are themselves overall harmful. Now that I look at it, it feels like between what we saw with snowden and schwartz it was 2013 when I really realized things are really really messed up.
Could you explain what you mean by that please?
Snowden is very zen and I don't know what Assange but it's not zen
Retaliation for exposing the truth, likely to never speak the full truth again.
The answer to that Reddit post is to delete your account on Reddit.
Let me check your Attic why not, you're not hiding any jews are you?
Yeah, so what if I want to hide a bunch of Jews in my attic?
What did she say after Snowden dropped that bomb?
We'll be right back after these messages
I'm gonna guess a whole lot of flustered backpedaling amounting to not a lot of anything, but I'm willing to be surprised if someone wants to dig up the video.
I don't think this image shows her being in a position to backpedal from. I see her providing him with a platform to counter some points that were made elsewhere; she has not necessarily taken a position one way or the other.
I meant backpedaling in the journalistic way of 'Oh you seem to actually know more about what you're talking about than I do and have a lot to say on the subject, I should, uh, redirect to a different topic where I can catch you out for that sick sound bite' or whatever. Maybe that's not what was going on in that interview, Iono, I haven't seen it.
https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden
Fuck me, the last part hit me HARD. I won't get into the details why because it is painful for me to talk about it.
I have "nothing to hide" but I STILL like privacy tyvm. Hence I'll shit in public with the stall door closed, and not disclose my wank schedule on Facebook
I would actually love to compromise on this. If the USA could fix it's democracy then I think non-military interpersonal communications might be due for judge/attorney warranted oversight, but as for actual personal files, devices, and filesystems I think the process of obtaining such warrants needs to be much more restrictive.
Unfortunately my options are between anarchy and oligarchy, which both fucking suck.
Don't post screenshots of text
You mean Russian asset Edward Snowden?
The fediverse condemns free speech. The fediverse bans unapproved opinions and wrong think, proving that the fediverse is an enemy to the principals of Edward Snowden. But it's fun to be on here one in awhile knowing fhe right thing to say that forces people to come undone and expose their true personality. When you through a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that helps is the one you hit, so it makes for a fun time to say the right thing for setting off everybody and watxh in the insults come in, it means that I hit my mark
If you don't like the way communities are being moderated, maybe you should find/start a server that more aligns with your values.
The fediverse imposes censorship through de-federation, as opposed to being decentralized that only requires protocol configuration with any software designed to communicate through said protocols. Fediverse requires approval before accepting messages from other servers
Wait, so people can choose whether or not they're subjected to hate speech? What tyranny!
The idea is that people can block what they don't want to see. Some users/communities/instances are more open, and others are more closed off. There's nothing stopping you from finding a place that aligns with what you want
If someone doesn't want to interact with you, you're not going to accomplish anything by forcing them to interact with you.
I'm all for individual users block who they want. In fact I emcourage it so users onlyvsee what they want. But when server admins defederate and divide the service into sections, users have no say anymore and will have to user mutiple accounts simultaneously across different servers to check posts. The line about telling people to start their own server is a cop out to avoid tue fractoring and censorship, but then to try to promote fediverse as an alternative to th bg names, that's all a lie and a conjob when severs run by infants block users talking to adults who do not react emotionally to reading words on a screen. In stead, the fediverse seems to be only for people who have identical opinions on every subject and every contrary view gets dogpiled in an attempt to beat into submittiom.
I can say something about people who live a certain lifestyle and have my account deleted. Others can say the exact opposite as me and they get praise and posting gets promoted. It makes the fediverse look like a cult of freakshows who are terrrified to go out to public places and debate people in the street, but come on here to escape humans who don't agree where everybody conforms to a specific view and everything else is deleted or banned. Given the way fediverse people complain about Twitter, a pattern emerges that their complaints is the fact the Twitter allows opinions that they can't tolerate so they stay in fediverse where they are protected from reading words. Those people will never achieve much for jobs or careers where co-workers can express offensive or insulting views and the company can't do anything because they can't fire someone for an opinion, so they will have to wok with people who don't support their views or reject their beliefs. How will people on here ever handle having children when their own kids can grow up to reject their views but have to maintain a close relationship despite their child's disapproval of what they believe?
Find one single instance where users are free to reject or critcize religion, reject trans people, criticize conservatives, and criticize leftists, all on a single instance.
People just don't want to be around a bigot. Simple as. Social harms that might come to you for espousing views that aren't acceptable to the surrounding community isn't censorship, it's just social rejection on legitimate grounds. Fix your heart or GTFO.
If that were true, speaking with strangers in public places would not contradict fediverse postings. It seems that being outside talking with strangers face to face closers aligns, but not identical, to what's on Twitter than every single fediverse service. If you can't be friends with someone who doesn't accept what you believe but has other interests away from the internet, not being online, that is lack of intellectual curiosity. Someone, I'm not suggesting you, who can't spend an afternoon with people without checking phone for new messages lives in misery 10 out of 10 times.