The most valuable argument against privacy, is it being abused by criminals. It’s foundational to the “I have nothing to hide” fallacy: waived by those, conditioned into believing, mass-surveillance being a proportional compromise; if potentially elevating their sense of “safety”. What they fail to recognize however, is mass-surveillance simply being an escalation, of the fundamentally flawed enforcement model: responsible for their lack of confidence in it. Enforcement of laws should be the exception, not the rule; otherwise conflicting incentives are ought to be addressed first (primarily: large discrepancies in socio-economics, and in turn all that stems from it).
Crime prevention based on enforcement can only prove unsustainable: to be compensated for, using automated systems during technological abundance (which is now). These systems are incompatible with privacy, and more broadly speaking: tangible assurance, personal data isn’t being collected without one’s explicit consent (regardless of whether the “expectation of privacy” demoralization applies). My sympathy goes out to any well-intended officer, tasked with treating symptoms of an effective aristocracy: intolerant towards meaningful change, which would challenge its self-serving interests. Just a thought, which has been plaguing me for too long… :)
My father, ex military, always said the Police aren’t there you protect you, they only act after the fact.
That aside, this system will never changed as long as the 1% are incentivised to maintain a certain level of poverty - poverty is intentionally built into the system. And organisations like the police and ‘justice’ system are set up to protect the 1% while giving the illusion of protection and justice to the average person.
Man, that feels like some tin foil hat crazy right there. I wish it was.
I would agree, despite it shifting towards a more proactive approach: where action is based on behavioral analysis and risk-scoring. It most certainly allows for exploitation of their socio-economic status: conditioning them to settle for underpaid positions for example. Yes, as to control public perception, of a system which typically works against their best interest. Tin foil hats off to you ;)
Whenever I hear someone says “I have nothing to hide” I ask them to unlock their phone so I can read their text, email, look at their photos, etc. And when they don’t give me their phone I mockingly ask “What are trying to hide Jeff!” Lol
Yeah, but the point I’m trying to make, is that it doesn’t defeat the underlying argument which fuels it. The people using the fallacy are under the false impression, it’s necessary to ensure their safety. It’s this fabricated sense of insecurity, primarily as a result of safeguarding a self-perpetuated aristocracy, which has manufactured their consent. If this would become evidently clear to people, they would no longer default to this fear-based rhetoric.
Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither and shall have none.
