Pennsylvania Law Bans Naming Police Officers Involved in Shootings For 30 Days

I have never bought the nothing to hide theory. I found a number of different reasons why I have never bought into the "group think".

1) The rules may change, think if a new law was to uniformly install surveillance cams in private homes to prevent force domestic violence. But a new election brings in a bunch of new do weller's and they now want booze illegal. Now the surveillance is done for both!. And with 27,000 pages of federal crimes, we are all guilty.

2) In regards to mass surveillance, data could/is be collected that could implicate you, but if you have nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear right?
Not really. Imagine if you are at a bar because of the burritos, and you don't drink any alcohol. But the cameras pick your car's license plate up there a couple times a week. This info is given to the insurance companies and next thing you know jacked insurance rates or no insurance due to surveillance cam proof of your bar fly habits.
Or you are helping dis-advantaged home owners in the inner city fix plumbing in their house, many churches sponsor this. But there is a known drug house next door, but your car is parked in the area, GOT YA. Again the "privilege" of driving may be in jeopardy or child protective services gets involved. Have fun in court. This turns into self censorship, and that isn't freedom.




3) Laws must be broken for society to progress: A society which can enforce all of its laws will stop dead in its tracks. The mindset of “rounding up criminals is good for society” is a very dangerous one, for in hindsight, it may turn out that the criminals were the ones in the moral right. Less than a human lifetime ago, if you were born a homosexual, you were criminal from birth. If today’s surveillance level had existed in the 1950s and 60s, the lobby groups for sexual equality could never have formed; it would have been just a matter of rounding up the organized criminals (“and who could possibly object to fighting organized crime?”).



This is a good point and one that I have never heard before. I think MJ will be another example of people doing something that should be handled like beer, and we will look back on it and wonder what were we thinking.
If the govt/corps could monitor the food we eat can you imagine that. No health insurance, and we (govt/corps) don't care if you don't like sage infused broccoli loaf, no health insurance for you. If/when we have Minority Report surveillance, govt/corps can really put the screws to you (more).




4) Four – Privacy is a basic human need: Implying that only the dishonest people have need of any privacy ignores a basic property of the human psyche, and sends a creepy message of strong discomfort. We have a fundamental need for privacy.


I put a small lock on my locker that I put my crappy coat in and my even crappier shoes in, does anyone want to steal hell no. But I want my stuff locked but am I hiding something, no, but I demand my privacy.

I left out our own person tracking device that we call cell phones. These are a very dangerous tool too.

Am I looking at this issue that is going to get more heated correctly?


falkvinge.net...