- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Uhhhh, I fucking looove Discworld! GNU Terry Pratchett.
Easy way to shut up any idiot: If you got nothing to hide, gimme all your passwords, also all the info on your credit cards.
Don’t forget to pinky promise that you will not do anything bad with those information and you will keep it secure.
saying that you have nothing to hide, is like saying that even though you’ve committed no crimes, you aren’t nervous or scared, when experiencing a lawsuit for example.
It’s like being put in proximity to a violent gang and not being scared because you have no ties to them.
According to this the idea was coined even before WWI
Can’t believe Goebbels would stoop so low as plagiarism
😄👏👏
Who would you be more suspicious of? A neighbor who always keeps their blinds closed? Or the neighbor who always peeks out of their window?
Or the neighbor
who always peeks out of their window?who insists that they must be allowed to stick a periscope through everyone’s blinds and have a look around?I dunno. I wouldn’t make assumptions and would keep my wifi password secure and keep my blinds closed either way.
It really comes down to trust, or the lack thereof. People don’t trust their governments and governments don’t trust their people. I think this mistrust originates from governments so often being imposed on the people, rather than the government being subordinate to the people. If the government were truly subordinate to the people, I don’t think privacy would be nearly as much of a concern.
Is it just the government?
I am trying to think if your neighbours would rat you out to other groups.
Having seen how “the gentlemen of the press” behave, I can easily believe there are people who would guard their privacy jealously to protect themselves from the feckless bastards who are “brave crusaders for justice and freedom”.
Nothing to do with the government. Nothing to do with breaking the law, or even coming close. Just because they have no desire to see their lives on the front pages of every paper and their personal lives made so much fodder for the public.
Ah ha! Found Goebbel’s alt acct!!
This makes sense on the face of it, but trust is fleeting. Let’s say we do establish trust in a democratically elected government and allow them to ‘violate’ our privacy for the common good. Who’s to say the next elected representatives are just as trustworthy? If the laws and systems we create allow for violation of privacy in the long term they will be abused at some point.
Well, I think there’s much more to making a government subordinate to its people than just electing representatives, especially if our options for representation are limited. I’m talking about a more radical departure from the status quo, about making the people the ultimate authority.
Not sure how that works exactly but I’ll still want my privacy from “the people.” if there is the potential for abuse there will be abuse, I’d rather limit the data leak right at the source.
I’m not necessarily opposed to privacy rights, but it would ultimately be the government that would have to enforce those rights, so how do you ensure that the government adequately enforces your privacy rights and that there isn’t any possibility for abuse?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
This shit right here is why I’ll never trust them. You’d be a fool to.
People who say this seem so very unwilling to practice what they preach and abandon their privacy.
OK so I’m a privacy advocate. I’m pro privacy, pro simplicity and accessibility for none techies. I’m pro Snowden and everything.
But,
there is no evidence for this attribution. You can often find it in reader comments and on social media with the source: “Goebbels, speech on the introduction of the GeStaPo 1933”. There was no such speech, nor was there an “Introduktion der Gestapo”, an expression that is completely unusual in German.
I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the post if that is your takeaway from it.
No if it’s misinformation trying to sell a feeling rather than facts it’s actually the right thing to focus on. As I said, it’s not like I’m defending the argument, that you have nothing to hide yada yada, I’m not the guy that needs convincing, I’m already trying to convince others.
He goes on to say that privacy is the foundation of all other rights.
Also the actual idea that “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is bullshit seems to be quite importance.
Whether you realise it or not, you are implying that because he got the source of the quote wrong, everything else he said is not worth listening to. That somehow he is invalidated as a source for EVERYTHING HE SAYS because of this one thing.
Which most peoplew ould fundametnally disagree with.
Well I already said multiple times, I’m not arguing against privacy, but the fact this whole post wraps around “i didnt know the origin of the quote” and its not only false but also he apparently didn’t even make that claim in the first place is baffling to me. There are one million and two good arguments for privacy and against the stupidity of the nothing to hide reply, but spreading emotionally manipulative misinformation to create an artificial feeling of a deadbeat argument is not the right approach.
I don’t get why you put so much effort into shifting the view away from half the content of the post instead of just admitting to misinformation or sending sources. There are people out there that see text on a picture with, Snowden interview in the back and actually think it’s legit information. It’s necessary to highlight fact from fiction so people don’t get a wrong sense of reality, which is a problem we are currently facing across the globe.
my friend who is ex military, has a smart house built around amazon Alexa said he had nothing to hide, when i rebuffed with how that phrase has nazi ties he’d gone white.
propaganda is an amazingly powerful thing all you need is a catchy sentence and itll will be repeated years after.
Just look at this comment from @[email protected]
the quite had been used by authoritarian regimes, as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.
not to say your wrong as your not just saying that using Nazis as a vehicle to get the point across isn’t completely dishonest, usually best to use a more broad approach like “authoritarian regimes” rather than Nazis
There is no evidence of this speech nor of Göbbels coining the phrase in any way. It’s not a language barrier problem.
Yea and now your putting words in my mouth. Take it easy
Because it is one phrase in one part of one frame of the entire post.
Yeah it’s wrong. Plenty of people have pointed it out already (you appear to have read the entire thread so you cannot have missed the fact other people have pointed it out as well).
But, as I said, to suggest that that is the most important part of the interview – he fucked up and that is ALL WE MUST PAY ATTENTION TO – is… just wrong. It is, quite frankly, something the NSA would have us to do discredit everything else he says.
Also there are quotes from three or four other people in the entire length of the post. All of which I am pretty sure are accurately sourced. Unless you think Terry Pratchett stole his work from Stalin.
It’s actually two frames and the title of the entire post that points to this conclusion, so yeah… Why are you coming at me with these straw man arguments that the NSA would and take into consideration I believe Terry Pratchett stole from Stalin. What does that have to so with the fact that the claim is neither correct 'nor did he actually say that in the interview.
I have not read every comment, but I’m thrilled seeing your debate there. I’m going to look into it.
Edit: Haha “plenty of people” dude why are you so butthurt and offended about it?
Upton Sinclair also referenced a similar argument in his book The Profits of Religion, published in 1917 :
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.” My answer was that a study of many labor cases had taught me the methods of the agent provocateur. He is quite willing to take real evidence if he can find it; but if not, he has familiarized himself with the affairs of his victim, and can make evidence which will be convincing when exploited by the yellow press.[2]
This is all in reference to the government.
All a person if they care about privacy from the government, you’ll get most yes. All them if they care Google sells anonomized data about what they are searching for, and most won’t give 2 fucks.
For most people they would be happy with strong protections from the government buying private data if they actually were presented the argument in a way they understood.
And that’s why nobody listens to privacy advocates, this type of shit.
I think the only way to get privacy into the thick skulls of those that don’t care is reminding them that one of the criminals can legally buy all that data in order to attempt scams or crimes against them. A very common scam in Brazil is the “cousin, my car broke and my phone died out, I need to pay the mechanic, can you do it for me?”
The other common buyer are robocallers.
Nobody cares. Fraud is low. It doesn’t affect people day to day. I think it’s the other way around. Privacy experts need to stop screaming over this shit that doesn’t actually affect most people. Your example doesn’t even really use data, it just tricks them.
where is your data?
The ftc reported 10B in fraud. Let’s assume it’s under reported and it’s 50B. That means .2% of the 26T USD economic output is fraudulent.
thats crazy, but how many people does that affect? idgaf about gdp you nerd.
I don’t know about the quote in question, but I do find it quite absurd when people still feel the need to distance the American government from the Nazis, when it is a well documented fact that the actions of the former inspired and shaped the latter with systems that either still exist in one form or another, or have left a horrific legacy (Native American reservations, the prison industrial complex, racial wealth gaps, to name a few off the top of my head).
Racial wealth gaps? Source?
The origin of the quote is not Goebbels.
Someone else has traced the quotation to a novel by Upton Sinclair in The Profits of Religion (do a books.google.com search for the phrase and you will find it.
In short, it is highly unlikely that Goebbels said this. As is usually the case with such quotations, no one who cites it provides a source.
Randall Bytwerk, expert in Nazi propaganda (Prof. Randall Bytwerk)
The problem with quotes from the internet is, that you cannot rely on their accuracy.
- Abraham Lincoln, 1864
wow that guy was really ahead of his time
Heh. Ahead, you say?
it’s true, I was his hat
Eh. I still think “bureaucracy is the price we pay for impartiality” was said by Stalin :)
what i had found is the quite is most often tied to authoritarian regimes through out history and the nazi’s did use the quite but had not created it
Piracy is the foundation of all other rights - that’s a good line.
Yar, now that be a truth fer all ears!
If the NSA has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from Snowden
Proper uno reverse
Vimes has always been one of my favorite characters in all media lol
Plowed all 41 books last year. Damn. Sometimes I’d have to put the book down and think on a thing or two. There were also a couple of times I had to put one down because I couldn’t stop laughing.
Never read anything that had me in true awe of the author. Stephen King blows me away with his realistic characters and dialog, but Pratchett was next level on everything.
How could a single mind contain so much?!
He was on a lot of issues waaay before the zeitgeist caught up with him. He has a whole book on trans rights in a world with codified gender norms (Monstrous Regiment) published in 2003, years before that was on anyone’s radar.
It’s because of him (and others) this is on the radar at all.
And you have Corporal Littlebottom in 1989
