jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (55 posts)

"I have nothing to hide"

  1. innersmiff profile image73
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    The most common stock response you get from anyone who hears of a policy that directly or indirectly invades their privacy is “I’ve got nothing to hide”.

    First let’s analyse the statement closely.  Its first assumption is that anybody who claims their right to privacy clearly has something to hide. This is not convincing when thought through for a second – bringing the issue to the home level, when you seek privacy for your toilet duties and when you wish to be intimate with your partner, are you necessarily ‘hiding’ something? It is not any great crime to partake in, what are after all, common natural processes as a human being. But it is part of social convention to seek privacy before carrying out these actions.  Similarly, you may wish to keep a conversation secret from colleagues or family members simply because the issue is sensitive. The point being that there are numerous acts you can make that you might want to stay in privacy, but are not necessarily immoral acts.

    But on what basis are you building your moral framework? From the government’s point of view, what is ‘wrong’ is what is illegal, and it may be the case that you are doing nothing illegal. However, what use is basing your moral compass on the law? The law is subject, through democracy or not, to a person or a group of person’s opinions that are subject to whim and prejudice as everyone else. Chances are that you disagree with at least one law currently on the books. Do you change your moral compass on this issue simply because ‘it’s the law’? Many a democratic society has produced unjust laws.

    But let’s say, for the sake of argument, you agree with every law on the books, and you trust government as benign and looking out for the people’s best interests – this particular government that happens to be in power won’t last forever. Chances are, at some time or another, a government will be elected whose policies you do not like, and that unjust power will be in their hands. Is that power only immoral now that a tyrant is in charge? The truth is that the moral value of that power has not changed, only the individual at the wheel.

    You do indeed have the right to accept the invasion of your privacy by an outside entity, confident that you have nothing to hide, but how exactly does this give you the right to impose that invasion on everyone else?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You're saying there's a difference between privacy and secrecy,  and the way the "Law" handles each.  Correct?
      At any rate, yes, we should be able to have personal privacy.   Yes, without being accused of hiding something.   Unless of course there's evidence that there's something illegal going on.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's funny. I thought you were a Conservative? Since when the hell have you ever cared about privacy?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Real conservatives support privacy. Fake conservatives don't. It's pretty simple.

        2. donotfear profile image91
          donotfearposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What do you think you're doing?! What has this statement got to do with the post?
          http://www.clker.com/cliparts/g/b/7/3/Q/W/neutral-face-th.png

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yup.  Had nothing to do with the post!
            Thanks lady for pointing that out.
            smile

      2. innersmiff profile image73
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But, then what is illegal is not always "wrong", or more pertinently, grounds for invasion of privacy.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          An example please?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Prostitution, distilling alcohol, setting up a lemonaid stand without (gasp!) proper permits, using drugs, making a bomb.  Giving your child a small glass of wine, doing your own home repairs, gambling outside the church or state lotteries.  The list of victimless crimes is nearly endless.

            All are illegal, but in and of themselves not "wrong" somehow.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Some of these do have potential victims but yes you're point is correct, I would add drug possession laws and polygamy laws (not to mention same sex marriage laws) to the list.

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ummm..........you can't legitimately add same sex marriage laws to that.
                You can maybe at same sex to it.   But that (in America at least) has already been in effect for years and years and years.   No gay bars are raided anymore just because they're "gay bars",  no gays' homes are raided because they're practicing same sex inside those buildings,  no one is arrested for kissing someone of the same sex (even though they should be if they're doing so in public!),  no law says arrest and kill someone who's gay.
                Same sex "marriage" is different.  That's a move beyond personal privacy.   That's a move of forcing all of America to condone homosexual activity & legitimatize it over and above what marriage is.  That affects the rights of other people.

                1. innersmiff profile image73
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nobody can force anybody to condone any activity, that's still your choice.

                2. Quilligrapher profile image91
                  Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Good evening Ms. Durham.
                  Your statement confuses me. Please list which of my rights are effected by a marriage between two other same gender adults.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                  1. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The right to free speech without being slandered as a bigot, for starters.
                    Can you not wrap your mind around that?   You should be able to.   Because that's the "little" tag-along consequence of legitimatizing gay "marriage".   Anyone who violates the "LAW" by speaking out against gay marriage is automatically labeled a bigot,  is mocked, verbally or physically abused.   We already see the consequences of it in these forums, in other forums, in cyberspace and in literal space.  We saw it in that beauty contest (I don't remember exactly which one now....but will find it...) where that gay judge mocked and insulted and slandered the contestant simply because she spoke as a conservative and Christian about homosexuality.    We see it everywhere already, and gay marriage isn't even legal everywhere.
                    I for one have no intention of cowing down to the bigotry and bullying of gay activists.
                    What I do have intentions of doing are exactly what I've always done-------feel compassion for the dilemma of people who struggle with gay temptations,  but to not enable them to continue to wallow in their own pit of self-pity and rebellion,  to tell them that they're in the same boat as any other person who struggles with any addiction or problem,  and that there is HOPE for repentance and forgiveness and to live a decent life with productive, peaceful results as much as anyone else has that opportunity.

                    If you want to be a scapegoat for liberal selfishness and political power, go ahead;  if you want to be under the thumb of people who don't give a whit about common human dignity and decency, go ahead.  If you want to appease people who will only be your friends if you give them whatever indecent rights they want, go ahead.  If you want to buy into the second-biggest lie of the century (the first-biggest being that an unborn child isn't a child),  if you want to lay down passively while the liberal agenda walks all over you and the rest of American society, go ahead.    But I will not.

            2. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Selling is legal. *Frak*ing is legal. Why isn't selling *frak*ing legal?!"
              - George Carlin

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The man was a genius. Now if we could only make our politicians half as smart.

            3. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The lemonade stand thing is crazy, yeah.
              But I'm wondering if maybe there isn't some reason behind that too.........maybe health reasons.......
              There's also a law, from what I've heard, that ya can only have so many yard sales per year,  and laws saying you can't sell garden produce from your yard, etc........
              Some things are really an invasion of privacy and rights.   Some aren't as evident as others............

              1. innersmiff profile image73
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sure the soft-beverages lobby were so concerned about public health when they pushed for the law tongue

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol
                  yeah, I dunno, like I said, exactly what prompted that law,  but I hope there IS some valid reason............

    2. HollieT profile image88
      HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Innersmiff, I'm massively late to the discussion as usual, so apologies- but all of the other discussions aside, IMHO, it's not about what we have to hide or otherwise, but trusting the authorities to have the integrity to only invade privacy when it is believed that an offence has been, or may be, committed.

      All those people who say "I have nothing to hide" are probably telling the truth- I'd have said the same at one time. But they are also assuming that the authorities would only want to invade the privacy of criminals, when in fact this is often not the case. They want to invade the privacy of dissenters . This is so politically motivated- stasi like if you ask me!

      1. innersmiff profile image73
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It has little to do with criminality either, when dissenting becomes a criminal offence to the state.

        On average, we all break around 3 laws a day - is this reason enough to enact a police state upon us? Obviously not. We need to be making a distinction between just and unjust laws.

  2. profile image57
    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago

    Oh yeah, I didn't use wikipedia. That may be where your mistakes stem from.

 
working