This is in India, but coming soon to a country near you (or the one you are in already).

  • Coleslaw4145@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    “I have nothing to hide” is such a dumb argument.

    Are you always going to have nothing to hide?

    Because it’ll be too late to start caring about privacy when you do.

    • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.onlineOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 day ago

      The problem is this: You don’t know what you need to hide or that you even needed to hide it until it is too late.

      Look at what is going on in the United States right now, LGBTQ rights are taking a massive beating. While hate crime laws are still in place, that is not a guarantee. Transpeople who revealed they are trans under safer conditions can’t take that shit back when someone like Trump and his cronies are in power and abso-fucking-lutely will put transpeople in extermination camps.

      I, like many people on many Lemmy platforms, have been anti-Trump for a very long time. I thought Trump was an absolute fool well before his 2015 bid for presidency and I was honest to god shocked that he was taken seriously and actually won! Now basically any criticism of Trump is being prosecuted and Trump critics can and have been violently attacked.

      I made numerous posts all over the internet criticizing and mocking Trump. Many have been made using temporary email, but my OPSEC online was eased into, meaning there was a lot of stuff from the past that I used under ‘real’ emails. My facebook page, which I never wanted (my family made it for me without any concern of what I wanted many years ago) is still active even though I cannot remember the last time I logged in and posted, and it does contain anti-fascist, anti-Trump comments and posts. Deleting the FB page might make denial a little easier, but if they decide to demand any information from FB (who will comply without a warrant) they will see it.

      Given that the United States WILL NOT ‘go back to normal’ once Trump kicks the bucket, there is no telling how the regime would use this data against its opponents.

    • cheesybuddha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I heard a lawyer argue something like this once in court, regarding the the fourth and fifth amendments:

      These laws are not meant to protect the innocent, they are meant to protect criminals. The founding fathers who penned it were traitors and seditionists who fought a war against their own country. They wrote these laws so that guilty people would be able to avoid punishment if proper procedures aren’t followed, and certain rights aren’t upheld.

      I’m not sure how much I agree with that, but it was definitely an interesting take.

      • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.onlineOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Whoever said that is full of shit. The right to silence was born out of the religious persecution that was rife in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, where coerce confessions and forcing people to incriminate themselves, even if it was bullshit, was commonplace. Also religion played a role. Lying in some circumstances was a mortal sin, but at the same time people acknowledged that people would naturally lie in order to protect themselves. So in order to make it possible for people to not commit mortal sins and not lie to authorities, the simple right to not answer questions and not have their silence used against them was eventually mandated.

        If people did not have the right to silence, all the authorities have to do is just coerce a confession out of a suspect and not investigate anything else. This happens all the time in China and Japan. Japan technically does have the right to silence in their constitution, but in practice it does not exist. If you refuse to answer questions and clam up during interrogations, they will take it as an admission of guilt and as far as I know, no judge refused that.

        In China you are required to answer any ‘relevant’ question posed by police, you only have the right to deny irrelevant questions. So basically if they accuse you of robbing and murdering some shopkeeper, you have to give an account of yourself, but if they ask you what you had for lunch today, you can decline to answer that question. Stupid, but it is what it is.

        • cheesybuddha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          The right to silence was born out of the religious persecution that was rife in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, where coerce confessions and forcing people to incriminate themselves, even if it was bullshit, was commonplace

          I think that’s what he was talking about. His argument is that the Founders did things that could incriminate themselves to their old government, and there were no protections in place to shield them from, for instance, self incrimination. The ‘validity’ of the law, I think, isn’t particularly germane.

        • cornishon@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Everyone should watch that lecture, but TL;DW is ANYTHING you say to the police will be used against you and NOTHING you say to the police will ever help you.

          If you’re not convinced, you really need to watch that lecture.