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… :)
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.
