No I don’t. There’s plenty of information that only myself and my family, or only ourselves plus a few select individuals in whom we trust, know, and no “for profit corporations” are aware of.
Because it’s none of their business.
That’s a pretty good argument when it’s private information like health, hygiene, etc.
Says who? What makes it so “fundamental” that the government has no right to abrogate it?
Well, none of us are perfect.
Then let’s not punish the government for the sins of the people.
Why do you assume he would care?
Under what circumstances do you imagine a routine traffic stop turning into the officer perusing your photo gallery?
What of a closeted gay teacher in the south?
There is no such thing as a “fundamental” human right. There is no supernatural being nor force of nature proclaiming that humans have certain rights. Humans have rights because we made them up and created governments to safeguard them. In the end, government is the only thing that defines, grants, or guarantees you rights - and in the end, it can take any of them away.
Sure there is.
Why not?
Your health stopped being “private information” when you discussed it with your doctor.
In the end, governments only have the power we give them. This power, which you seem to assume they already have, I do not wish them to have.
Then take it from them if you think you can.
Good question! The answer: we do. Just like we consider the right to life, the right to bodily autonomy, and the right to free speech fundamental. The government has no right to abrogate it because we as a society deem it vital to the human condition, and because the result when there is no such right to privacy is often totalitarian and almost always negative.
What follows is a handful of the most woefully misguided statements I’ve seen in a long time. They completely miss the point to an almost insane degree. Seriously, dude, what the hell? None of this warrants a refutation. It’s inane.
Christ, you cannot seriously be this naive. Yes, why would it matter to a closeted gay teacher in the south whether or not he had the right to privacy? Whether a local sheriff knew whether or not he was gay? After all, it’s not like something like that could end his career (hell, that’s not even a gay teacher. That’s just an atheist).
When your argument just as easily dismisses the right to free speech or the right to life, the problem is not the right you are arguing against, it is a flaw with your argument.
That’s what our courts are for.
Well, now we’re making progress.
Well, of course the government has a right to abrogate it, because the government is the people and therefore cannot act contrary to their will.
I wouldn’t choose to continue living in a place where my career was predicated on my religious belief - and if I had no choice but to do so, then I would either change my beliefs or change my career.
And now you’ve gone back to assuming that “the right to free speech or the right to life” is some objective, cosmically-defined decree, instead of being something that people made up, and demanding that logic itself bend to your personal preferences as to how the world should be.
What I I find very disturbing is actually wanting to argue against that right-arguing for complete capitulation to the state when it comes to fundamental freedoms fought for.
The only reason you have any rights whatsoever is because the state exists to provide and protect them.
To fight against the state is to fight against the notion of rights.
Police can execute legitimate warrants just fine – to the owner of the phone. The idea that they should serve them to Apple or Google instead is as silly as the idea of serving a warrant for stolen money in a mattress to Sealy Posturpedic.
Either you protect against cybercrime, or you insert a backdoor and facilitate cybercrime. If the FBI actually wanted to reduce crime, it would applaud this development.
That’s ridiculous on its face. Such a policy is specially tailored to withhold protection only from people who aren’t actively asserting a right to privacy, while protecting secrets both licit and illicit.
Isn’t that exactly what’s happening in this situation?
Except that in this case, Sealy Posturpedic has produced a mattress which cannot be opened or X-rayed unless the guy who sleeps on it says “Mother May I”, and you have provided him the legal right to pretend to be a deaf-mute, and required the police to blindfold themselves while in the same room as the mattress unless he suddenly regains the power of speech.
Either you protect against terrorism and child molestation, or you develop and sell for profit a piece of software that makes it impossible for the police to find out about the kids you’re raping and the journalists you’re beheading. If Apple and Google wanted to reduce crime, they’d work with the government, not against it.
Mission Accomplished. Apple, Google, take your bows…
…and stand against the board, here’s a blindfold and a cigarette.
Never thought I’d see the day when people who claimed to call themselves liberals were cheering for the triumph of multinational conglomerates over the government.
You have got to be kidding me.
Of course, you will argue that I should be a good citizen and should track the text of every bill that goes through congress just to make sure that all these materials I store, be they Islamic newspaper clippings, clerical fatwas, nudie pics. Whatever.
This is no joke, did you know that many of the state Republican platforms currently call for all pornography to be illegal. What percentage of American men have some kind of pornography stored somewhere on their computer or phone?
How many erstwhile political leaders have been brought down through allegations of sexual but legal misconduct? Is this an acceptable use of government power?
The chilling of political speech: Let’s say I know that my cellphone, texts, emails, etc… are being monitored. Rhetorical question: is there a possibility a reasonable person would censor themselves knowing this in a perfectly legal criticism of the current administration or legislature? Don’t you think that these kinds of fears could subvert our democracy? Any possibility? Should we not guard against this danger?
Petty officials abusing their powers: If you want I could link to a dozen stories of government officials abusing their power. Do you need me to? Allowing government to monitor the activities of common citizens just gives more access for this kind of abuse. Think about what police departments could do with the current civil forfeiture laws if it had a good handle on everybody’s finances and social support structures.
Do you need more reasons why it is important to limit government power in this regard? Can you address the problems I have laid out here?
…act as a pathetic enabler when the people hired to do those jobs whine and moan “It’s too haaaaarrrrrd to do it within the rules made by We The People”.
The point is that time and again we have seen that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total information awareness is in many way synonymous to absolute power.
Yes, the terrorists will surely kill us all now that our phones are slightly better encrypted. You’ll be sorry!
The government has been breaking the law left and right. Did you expect liberals to cheer for that?
Exsqueeze me? If this is a government of, by and for the people, then I(being a people) have every right in the world to put my two cents in when it comes to what my government does for/to me, and when enough people put their two cents into the pot it soon becomes apparent where the buck is going to stop eventually.