Do you think only the guilty need fear surveillance?

1. 91

   UnnamedHaraldposted 10 years ago

   Do you think only the guilty need fear surveillance?
   
   What do you think of the statement that people shouldn't fear surveillance programs if they have nothing to hide? In other words, innocent people have nothing to fear, while the guilty should have no right to privacy?

   replyreport
2. 82

   Shawn McIntyreposted 10 years ago

   
   
   I made this a few days ago, seems appropriate:

   replyreport
3. 0

   TXSasquatchposted 10 years ago

   In general, I'd disagree with the notion that only the guilty need fear surveillance, but then again, that depends on what one means by "surveillance."  That can mean a whole lot of things, and the answer isn't the same for all of them.

   replyreport
4. 78

   flacoinohioposted 10 years ago

   I think the use of surveillance can be a useful tool to prevent and solve crimes.  Like any other tool, it could be used for purposes such as creating fear and intimidation, even to those who pose no threat to society.   Privacy is the most debated argument with most surveillance supporters claiming privacy is not violated if we are in public areas.   I can see privacy being an issue.  Everyday my personal information is being sold by creditors, state agencies, credit reporting agencies, and computer tracking programs.  Imagine the money that could be made by selling real time information about a person by hackers, government agencies, and privately surveillance companies or business owned surveillance.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TXSasquatchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Saying that privacy isn't an issue in a public place isn't a "claim"; it's a bona fide truth.  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.  That is an accepted constitutional standard, and that's why defining "surveillance" is th

      replyreport
   2. 91

      UnnamedHaraldposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The expectation of privacy extends to public places. I have the expectation of not being stopped and searched for no valid reason. "Surveillance", here, is defined in the broadest terms because that's the way it's being applied.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      TXSasquatchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      That's not surveillance.  That's something entirely different, and the legal standard governing it is also different.  For the most part, surveillance means "watching," not acting.  Still, there are a lot of different kinds of "watching."

      replyreport
   4. 84

      AlexK2009posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In a public place by definition you cannot expect privacy, surveillance should be necessary, beneficial to all,  the minimum needed and any data discarded as soon as possible.

      replyreport
5. 70

   bn9900posted 10 years ago

   No, the innocent need to fear it as well because if they don't, then they could be accused of something that never happened.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      alancaster149posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like you've been reading 'Catch 22'.

      replyreport
6. 65

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   Surveillance is surveillance. In our case it doesn't mean surveillance to protect but surveillance to intimidate. Otherwise where would be the point? Surveillance was the weapon of the Stasi, of the KGB. Now it has a new face NSA and its satellites but also it means that our so-called democracy is seeing you as a criminal not a potential but only and simply a criminal. I guess to spy on one's population means to control it easily.
   Don't count on me to use new gadgets to give them more access to my privacy! They will get what I want them to get! No credit cards, no cell, no facebook... Strict minimum.

   replyreport
7. 59

   RealityTalkposted 10 years ago

   It's flawed logic.  Something those people wishing to spy on other people use conveniently often.  Our forefathers believed in privacy centuries before the technology today that has eaten away at the definition of the word.
   
   Fear is something government uses to control its population and maintain its control.  This is not a perfect world and as has been said many times before we do not live in a bubble and do we want to live in a bubble.  It amazes me that some many people are willing to give up all liberties so easily with the justification of protection by big brother.  Remember 911?  Remember when George W. Bush said to live in fear is to let the terrorists win.  George and government remember.  It wasn't too long after that statement that George started thinking (for the first time in his life) and realized the populous living in fear gave him immense power. Soon was born the "temporary" Patriot Act and so many more acts leading to the erosion of our liberties.  Heck, even telephone and email surveillance is okay now.  Boy, if Richard Nixon had only waited a few decades to become president.  He would have been hailed as the protector of the nation.
   
   We are supposed to be a nation of liberties.  A nation that respects the individual.  A nation that respects privacy.  But, government has and is using fear to convince the easily manipulated small minded that big bad guys are around every corner.  Evil freedom haters are hiding under our beds.  The bad guys may live next door.  So if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind someone inspecting your house now and then.  You shouldn't mind someone reading your private letters and accessing all your medical records.  Hey, government is only looking out for your safety.  That is all government cares about.  Maintaining power, position and personal wealth have nothing to do with it. 
   
   Well, I better stop writing now.  I have to report all the possible terrorists reporting on this site to the government, so the government can do a complete search of their homes, emails, texts, phone calls, medical records and general history.  I hope no one here has anything to hide.

   replyreport
8. 80

   cyoung35posted 10 years ago

   I feel that this statement is true however I just heard today that the government has surveillance drones that are as small as a mosquito and can even extract DNA. How far will this go? Is there a right to privacy in my own body? There has to be a line drawn as to what is legal and what is considered an invasion of privacy.

   replyreport
9. 60

   Wacky Mummyposted 10 years ago

   Absolutely not. The whole 'if you have nothing to hide' is a red herring. It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so why do they treat us as if we've already committed a crime? I have plenty to hide that I wouldn't want to share with the government, or indeed even close family - doesn't mean I'm doing anything illegal though, (which I'm not) it's called keeping your private life just that, private.

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

    Considering that we give away more info about ourselves in a lifetime to every form of media , business ,  corporation , the government , facebook , on and on !  I do not fear the powers that could be .They already know you and I intimately  . Don't want to be  caught doing something wrong , don't do anything wrong !

    replyreport
    1. 84

       AlexK2009posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Definition of what is wrong changes  all the time.

       replyreport
11. 70

    daughtersonposted 10 years ago

    At this point in time surveillance programs do not affect our lives -- unless of course you are a terroist.  What is really controlling our lives is our credit score!  If you have a bad credit score you can't get a job or an apartment.  Your loans will have a higher interest rate.  They collect information about you and use it to control your life -- for real.  And you can't even get access to what business can see.  You get a different version from what they get.  The credit score really does control our lives and there is nothing you can do about it.  Mistakes in your credit can ruien your life.  You have the responsibility to fix it.  This in my opinion is far more dangerous and disturbing.  The banks love the credit score they can use it to charge more interest.
    
    As far as drones and survalliance is concerned it looks like we are on the way to the situation of the film The Terminator.
    I may sound like a nut but I have to say I find this very disturbing.

    replyreport
12. 72

    Laura in Denverposted 10 years ago

    Yes and no.
    
    At work at Lowe's, we require surveillance cameras to find people stealing from the store which causes profits to go down, PLUS price of merchandise to go up to the consumer. We identify professional shoplifters by using the tapes when an unauthorized transaction happens or someone blasts through the inventory control system setting it off.
    
    Store cameras have been used to find terrible criminals, also.
    
    But, the non-guilty may find they are featured in such tapes in embarrassing positions, perhaps. "Funny" videos on YouTube may not be as funny when they feature you!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       TXSasquatchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The Supreme Court has held in many cases that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.  If you're in a store where anyone can see you, you're fair game.

       replyreport
13. 84

    AlexK2009posted 10 years ago

    In 1932 a Jew in Germany  who obeyed the law had nothing to fear. In 1933 that changed.  IBM supplied technology that allowed tracking  and detection of Jews and helped the Third Reich to use it.  That was a form of surveillance. By 1943 Being a Jew was a reason to fear.
    
    It is perfectly possible to be behaving legally and still not want your activity monitored.
    
    And laws do change.
    
    In some countries Christians are monitored and persecuted, not always by the state.  In the McCarthy Era a vast number of things, all legal, all guaranteed by the constitution,  could get you called up in front of his kangaroo court.
    
    In our world to day it seem like it is only the guilty who do NOT need to fear.
    
    Consider the following categories that government agencies define as potential terrorists
    
    ( banoosh.com/blog/2013/08/27/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents/ )
    Those that talk about “individual liberties
    Those that want “to make the world a better place”
    Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
    Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
    Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
    The sovereign citizen movement
    Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
    Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
    
    etc. 72 in total.   
    
    I am sure there are people in these groups who are doing nothing wring but have a reason to fear.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       alancaster149posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I might seem a bit 'blue-eyed and innocent, but in English-speaking countries the legal system provides a form of shelter both for the guilty and innocent , 'innocent until proven guilty'. Are you saying the US has abandoned the precept?

       replyreport
    2. 41

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Yes they have, now it is innocent until we can figure out something to charge you with. In the meantime we will see if we can't twist some law to get you. If that fails we will make something up, entrap you and murder you
       read up on "Ruby Ridge".

       replyreport
    3. 91

       UnnamedHaraldposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It sometimes seems that we are now living in the Post-Constitutional Era in the U.S.

       replyreport
14. 76

    alancaster149posted 10 years ago

    In the words of the great Huddersfield hero Harry Higginbotham,
    'If tha's done nowt, fear nowt!'
    In the words of his local MP Henry Highbottom,
    'I categorically deny any wrongdoing on behalf of Special Branch and MI5. These assertions are both improbable and unprovable, and in all likelihood the worries expressed point to a persecution complex!'
    Who do you believe?

    replyreport
    1. 84

       AlexK2009posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       If only the guilty need to worry why are our politicians so averse to having their business dealings made public?

       replyreport
    2. 76

       alancaster149posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Tut-tut! We all know our politicians are crooked, ever since toffs bought their offspring 'rotten boroughs' so they could sit in Westminster (and get off their Dad's wallets)!

       replyreport
15. 39

    ChristinSposted 10 years ago

    I think that's an argument that can lead to trouble. If someone with an agenda wants to frame a group of people for instance, they can doctor up some "surveillance" footage and use it to persecute people. 
    
    On the other hand, I rather like the idea of surveillance in some instances - construction zones where people blow through at outrageous speeds, endangering others for example.  Speed trapping dangerous drivers could be a potentially good use of surveillance.  In shops that can get robbed or banks - surveillance is a deterrent to crimes. When I worked midnights in a hotel as a teenager, I was glad to have that little surveillance camera in the corner.  It really depends on the type of surveillance you're talking about.

    replyreport
16. 65

    pmorriesposted 10 years ago

    I think The 99% have something to fear. After all,only those with with the best lawyers have nothing to fear.

    replyreport
17. 41

    Borsiaposted 10 years ago

    That is the argument that leads to the end of freedom and liberty, supposedly what America stands for.
    Washington is becoming more and more corrupt every day and you have to ask yourself "Do you trust them?" I certainly don't! And I don't see any reason for them to know anything about my personal life.
    I don't have any problem with surveillance of public places and obviously stores using cameras to catch shoplifters is a good thing, to bad the justice system give such lenient sentencing for property crimes.
    But that is where I draw the line.
    If someone is a criminal they have given up their right to privacy but that doesn't mean that the rest of us should accept the lose of our rights.

    replyreport
18. 59

    jenniferlynn78posted 10 years ago

    Yu know honestly, this is a hot topic but it has nothing to do with hiding anything or surveillance programs!  This is not about innocent or guilty people hiding anything or having no fear, it's invasion of privacy rights and breaking constitutional liberty rights!  This shit is for the birds!

    replyreport
19. 71

    lone77starposted 10 years ago

    The Corporate Party media has a knack for spinning things to suit their psychotic masters -- the Military-Industrial-Complex, Big Pharma, Wall Street Banksters and the like.
    
    Mention any "fact" that calls into question the governments conspiracy theory on 9/11, and it's immediately called a "conspiracy theory." I've even had a number of hubbers (who I otherwise thought to be intelligent individuals) have called facts, "conspiracy theory."
    
    The idea that "only the guilty need fear surveillance" is a crock being sold by the Corporate Party for its own selfish purposes. Remember Bush Sr, "read my lips,... no new taxes"? He lied. Remember what nice things he said about the New World Order? He lied. And like father, like son, Bush Jr lied about those WMDs and made jokes to his fellow, rich psychopaths while our boys continued to die overseas because of those lies.
    
    Bottom line: We all need to abhor surveillance.
    
    Would you give your house key and bank password to a complete stranger?
    
    Our government has been co-opted by a psychopathic elite who don't care about justice, right-and-wrong, fairness or individual suffering. They're selfishness incarnate. They are ego on steroids.
    
    Dr. Rima had one patient who was a world leader. That patient (name withheld because of doctor-patient privacy; good for her!) told her that the great culling was about to begin. That the "useless eaters" (us) would be eliminated.
    
    If the Georgia Guidestones are any indication, the globalists (NWO) want to reduce the population to about 500 million -- a more manageable slave population. Easier to watch. That means murdering 6.5 billion!
    
    When Obama can tell us that of the Gitmo prisoners all of them should stay their forever, even if found INNOCENT, you know something's rotten in government.

    replyreport