A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police
Note that it’s followed by a Police Officer almost entirely agreeing with the Lawyer.
Even if you are the perfect saint who has nothing to hide, a mis-statement can get you into plenty of trouble. So, not only do have have to have a guilt free life, but you have to never ever mis-state anything.:dubious:
The ACLU and all my legal-eagle buddies, including two Judges say “Once they read you your rights, say only two things -‘I want to speak to my/an attorney.’ ‘Am I free to go’”.
Does that make the fallacy in question an appeal to authority? Would it be easier to list fallacies that don’t play a part in noxious anti-privacy arguments and actions?
No, it’s not; you are confusing guilt and fear. To use an extreme example; I wouldn’t feel guilt for hiding Jews from the Nazis, but I’d definitely be afraid of getting caught.
Yes. And another possibility is embarrassment. There are things which are not the least bit wrong legally or morally, but which would be embarrassing if certain people found out about them.
Just wanted to add that there’s a reason industrial and national espionage (and the difference isn’t nearly as clear cut as you might expect) is if not always illegal at least highly frowned upon. It’s also the main reason we have patent laws.
You also need to realize that this is usually hyperbole. They acknowledge that some people get screwed, but think it is rare.
Also, most of the counterarguments are accusatory in nature, so even if they would agree, they can’t.
Someone tried it on me, saying that I should allow myself to patted down by an officer. My response is that my privacy is not what I care about in that situation. I just don’t want to be touched.
And I still want to point out yet again that you guys aren’t afraid of losing privacy as much as you are afraid of someone using the newfound information against you. I still don’t get why people care if people know stuff about them, but don’t do anything with it. It seems that a lot of people do not weigh how likely given information can be used against them, or how likely said person would use it against them.
It’s something that cops will say to you in order to get you to say something – anything – that they can then twist and use against you.
And it’s bullshit. Remember, you have the right to remain silent. Remaining silent is not an admission of any type of guilt, contrary to what the cops may tell you. By opening your mouth, you are only committing yourself to more questions; if you say something that they can twist, you’re doing their job for them. As well, asking for a lawyer is not an admission of guilt either, and if asked, all you’re doing is merely safeguarding your rights that they seem so eager to trample all over.
Do not do their job for them – if they’re so sure of what they’re doing, tell them to shit or get off the pot about whether they will continue to hold you, or decide to release you, but under no circumstances should you do anything to help them make that decision.
I don’t think anyone has said, simply, that privacy is a value in itself. For example, I have no embarrassment about any books I’ve taken out of the library, nor any fear about any consequences I might face, legal or otherwise, if the information is revealed–but I still don’t want it to happen.
Since my library books, in fact, do not reveal any wrongdoing, it would be a mistake to assume that my valuation of the privacy of that information signified anything other than my valuation of privacy, period.
Because if it’s not an actual crime against another, not something I’m doing publicly, and not something I’ve chosen to reveal, then it is nobody’s business but mine. Just as being touched in a patdown wouldn’t actually hurt you–but would be a violation–so too would be the announcement of my reading list.
No, actually it DOES disprove the axiom, the axiom being that if one is reluctant to provide personal information, that he is guilty of a crime. There may be things that one does not want to admit, but that are not necessarily crimes. Masturbating is not a crime, but I do not feel particularly inclined to tell you how often I masturbate. In this case, I have something to hide, but I am not guilty of a crime. Therefore, the statement “Only guilty people have something to hide” is disproven.
i’ve read about logical fallacies and false propositions and i’m asking how to classify this statement:
if i did it for you, i’d have to do it for everyone.
i’ve pulled this off another site, but it doesn’t say anything about what i’m looking for.
" Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive.
Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignorantio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion.
Non Sequitur (literally, “It does not follow”): A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. "
It’s not a fallacy. In fact, in some retail sales situations, it’s the law. You can’t, for example, have a shirt marked for $10.00 and then offer a “white person” discount. If you discount for one, you have to discount for all.
Deception or tricks or intentional misuse misapplication of words: Actually the statement is true, but for a different reason, we are all guilty of something, or to put it another words we all have flaws we would like to hide and we like to create a safe haven for ourselves, that safe haven is not just for the skeletons in our closet but for a place in our lives where we can enjoy our flaws in private, thus we like to have privacy and respect for privacy from others who likewise are flawed and enjoy their own space of privacy.
It is the lack of respect for the personhood (we all have stuff to hide, much of that is personal and does not involve their position of authority) that such a statement as the OP brings up and the violation of their safe haven that makes the statement nonsensical as it does not address or correctly define the reason for privacy in the first place.
The flaws may or may not lead to a crime situation, however that does not negate the desire to be able to keep aspects of our lives to ourselves and the respect that one is expected to be shown to be allowed privacy.
It depends on an unexplored a priori assumption as to privacy, autonomy and accountability. The pithiest counter I can think of is “Everybody has something to hide, not because they feel guilty about it, but because it’s nobody else’s business.”
On one hand, it’s true that people who do nothing wrong should have nothing to hide.
But I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s never done anything wrong. MOST of the things we do in our private lives, even potentially embarrassing things, should remain private in the absence of a damn good reason.
I have absolutely nothing illegal in my house, but I still wouldn’t want anyone searching through it. Our homes are supposed to be sacred, private space. Even those of us who are law-abiding citizens don’t want strangers going through our possessions, through our family photos, through our freaking underwear drawers. Even if the police are as polite and as professional as possible, that’s demeaning and humiliating.
This post seems internally contradictory. It isn’t just a matter of “I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s never done anything wrong”. As you suggest yourself, there are things that are perfectly innocent and right and proper–having sex with your wife, say–which are nonetheless private and which a reasonable person would object to having videotaped and broadcast all over the Internet (or even videotaped and watched by the Thought Police), even though the actions in question are in no sense “wrong”, simply because it would be demeaning and humiliating to be subjected to that level of surveillance of our private lives.