You must log in or register to comment.
Goebbels certainly didn’t believe in the right to privacy but there is nothing connecting him to the “if you have nothing to hide…” quote. He certainly wasn’t the first to come up with it, as it can be found in a 1917 piece by Upton Sinclair.
It seems like Goebbels’ connection to the quote is one of these “it feels so true that it has to be true” misattributions that floats around on the internet and in popular culture.
And by the way, the NSA are Nazis, they are bad people doing bad things for evil reasons.
Snowden doesn’t even think the NSA is evil:
The lesson of 2013 is not that the NSA is evil. It’s that the path is dangerous. The network path is something that we need to help users get across safely. Our job as technologists, our job as engineers, our job as anybody who cares about the internet in any way, who has any kind of personal or commercial involvement is literally to armor the user, to protect the user and to make it that they can get from one end of the path to the other safely without interference,” he told an auditorium filled with the world’s foremost computer and network engineers at a 2015 meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force in Prague.
He reaffirmed his view a year later at Fusion’s 2016 Real Future Fair in Oakland, California. “If you want to build a better future, you’re going to have to do it yourself. Politics will take us only so far and if history is any guide, they are the least reliable means of achieving the effective change.… They’re not gonna jump up and protect your rights,” he said. “Technology works differently than law. Technology knows no jurisdiction.”
“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.
If you really got nothing to hide then why do you close the door when you use the public toilet?
If you got nothing to hide why are you wearing pants bro?
Okay
removes pants
😉👀🧌
pooping stage fright
Don’t post screenshots of text
Let me check your Attic why not, you’re not hiding any jews are you?
Feels like out of all the amendements, the 4th is the most violated one in US history.
Weird how Edward Snowden is basically a Boddhisatwa and Julian Assange
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.
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?
Where is the harm?
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.
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.
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.
Still stupid as fuck to compare the Stasi to the Nazis.
Libs be libbin
Only to a moronic hexbear or ml users like you
Since the Stasi were one arm of an authoritarian government and the Nazis were the whole-ass authoritarian government, including Stasi-like arms, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. But I mean if you’re just here to conflate fascism and communism then you are probably immune to nuance and subtlety anyway, so by all means, don’t let me stop you.
What the fuck is an authoritarian government? The entire point of government is to wield authority.
authoritarian /ə-thôr″ĭ-târ′ē-ən, ə-thŏr″-, ô-/ adjective
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
“an authoritarian regime.”
Look, it’s right there in the example even.
If you would like to argue definitions I encourage you to spend some quality time with a dictionary. Google can point you to several.
“Authoritarianism” is usually just coded language to demonize anti-colonial countries. It’s almost never used to refer to the “civilized” capitalist metropoles like the US and Europe, who have done their best to strangle every country that dares to exist outside their orbit.
Yes, I too am aware that people often misuse words. It might be safe to assume that the guy who just demonstrated that he knows how to operate a dictionary probably isn’t one of them though. Especially if you had read my comment that they were replying to, because then you would have seen that the nation I was calling an authoritarian regime (in fact, a ‘whole-ass authoritarian regime’) was Nazi Germany, so I don’t think we were in any danger of not labeling Western colonial powers as authoritarian in this thread.
This is your brain on liberalism
Yeah, it would be more correct to compare the to the gestapo and the SD instead of the whole party.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: “theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron”
Why is the Stasi, a state organ responsible for countering all the fascist groups the US was still backing, comparable to the state organs of the Nazi Germany that the communists were intent on destroying?
Who you say you are fighting is irrelevant. It is how you do it.
The first comparison wasn’t about ideologies, it was about spying the population and the stasi took it to a whole new level.
Those governments weren’t trying to destroy nazi organizations, they were trying to destroy anything that it wasn’t them and people suffered for that.
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.
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
I also have plenty to hide (crimes)
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.
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.
Just because an interviewer brings up a point doesn’t mean they agree with it.
Thus my skepticism that she had anything useful to say in response.
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.
