3 Reasons the ‘Nothing to Hide’ Crowd Should Be Worried About Government SurveillanceMost people think the federal government would have no interest in them, but many discover to their horror how wrong they are
Scott Shackford <http://reason.com/people/scott-shackford/all> | June 12, 2013 - SHARE<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd/email> - PRINT<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd/print> - - - - inShare<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd> 9 - <http://www.reddit.com/submit> - Email<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd/email> - Send to Kindle - [image: So you say you like "Homeland," do you?]Credit: Jbk_photography | Dreamstime.comResponding to a popular reaction to news of the National Security Agency’s massive data collection program, blogger Daniel Sieradski started a Twitter feed called “Nothing to Hide<https://twitter.com/_nothingtohide>.” He has retweeted hundreds of people who have declared in one form or another that they are not concerned that the federal government may spy on them. They say they have done nothing wrong, so they have nothing to hide. If it helps the government fight terrorists, go ahead, take their civil liberties away. RELATED ARTICLES - We're Only Spying on Ourselves<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/were-only-spying-on-ourselves> Jacob Sullum <http://reason.com/people/jacob-sullum>| 6.12.13 - 4 Ways the Fourth Amendment's Already Being Pummeled in a Non-Top Secret Way<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/11/4-ways-the-fourth-amendments-already-bei> Ed Krayewski <http://reason.com/people/ed-krayewski>| 6.11.13 - How Regulators Enticed Verizon to Sell Out Customers to the NSA<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/10/why-did-verizon-do-it> Ira Stoll <http://reason.com/people/ira-stoll>| 6.10.13 MORE ARTICLES BYScott Shackford<http://reason.com/people/scott-shackford/all> - Doc Savage <http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/01/doc-savage> 6.01.13 1:00 pm - Taking the Cake <http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/11/taking-the-cake> 5.11.13 9:58 am - Television Shows Without Television Companies<http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/09/the-television-shows-that-arent-coming-f> 5.09.13 4:30 pm - SURVEILLANCE <http://reason.com/tags/surveillance> - NSA <http://reason.com/tags/nsa> - PRIVACY <http://reason.com/tags/privacy> - INTERNET <http://reason.com/tags/internet> - SOCIAL MEDIA <http://reason.com/tags/social-media> In his blog <http://danielsieradski.com/nothing-to-hide/14572>, a frustrated Sieradski listed many of the abuses of power our federal government is known for; he is not happy with the "nothing to hide" crowd. There are many, many reasons to be concerned about the rise of the surveillance state, even if you have nothing to hide. Or rather, even if you think you have nothing to hide. For those confronted by such simplistic arguments, here are a three counterarguments that perhaps might get these people thinking about what they’re actually giving up. *1. Every American Is Probably a Criminal, Really* That Americans think they have nothing to hide in the first place is a sign of how little attention they're paying to the behavior of our Department of Justice. Many Americans have run afoul of federal laws without even knowing it. Tim Carney noted at the *Washington Examiner<http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-even-law-abiding-people-should-oppose-surveillance/article/2531452> *: Copy a song to your laptop from a friend's Beyonce CD? You just violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Did you buy some clothes in Delaware because they were tax free? You're probably evading taxes. Did you give your 20-year-old nephew a glass of wine at dinner? Illegal in many states. Citizens that the federal government wants to indict, the federal government can indict if it monitors them closely enough. That's why it's so disturbing to learn that the federal government doesn't need to obtain a warrant on us in order to get our emails and phone records. [image: Remember when comedians used to make fun of laws against removing mattress tags?]Credit: Kostyantin Pankin | Dreamstime.comAttorney Harvey Silverglate even wrote a book<http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/15/im-a-criminal-youre-a-criminal> about it, *Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent*<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/reasonmagazineA/>. The Department of Justice has been notably and egregiously using federal laws to destroy lives. Former Tribune employee Matthew Keys<http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/15/business-as-usual-at-doj-threatening-guy> is facing federal charges and possibly prison time because he gave his old password to a member of Anonymous, who changed a headline at the website for the *Los Angeles Times*. The vagueness of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes violating a website’s terms of service<http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/understanding-the-cfaa/> a possible felony. We’re not just referring to government websites. All websites. Given the digital focus of the PRISM program, everybody should be concerned about what could potentially happen should that data end up in the hands of federal prosecutors. The “nothing to hide” crowd's involvement in political activism is likely limited. That’s perfectly fine. Nobody should feel obligated to join the Occupy movement or a Tea Party organization or be the kind of person who might end up on a politician’s enemies list. But to say “I have nothing to hide” is a fundamentally selfish declaration. What about parents, sisters, brothers, partners, and other loved ones? Can we say the same for them? You don’t have to have an illness whose suffering can be eased with the use of medical marijuana to be concerned about the way the federal government treats this industry. Would you say, “I don’t need medical marijuana so I don’t care if they imprison those who do”? Sadly, some people do. Fundamentally, saying “I have nothing to hide,” is similar to saying “I don’t care about those who do.” *Next: The problem with trusting the government.* On Wednesday, June 12, 2013, plainolamerican wrote: > There is a "serious misperception" about the National Security > Agency's PRISM program, Google chief legal officer David Drummond said > in an exclusive interview with Fox News. On Tuesday the company pushed > back against the layers of secrecy surrounding the agency's alleged > blanket snooping on American citizens. > “We were as shocked about those revelations as anyone,” Google’s chief > legal officer David Drummond told Fox News, in an exclusive interview > with Fox News' Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge. > On Tuesday the Internet giant wrote on its official blog that it had > sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau > of Investigation (FBI) director Robert Mueller, asking the agencies to > allow Google to release more information about the national security > orders it had received. > Google's request comes days after the government publicly acknowledged > that secret Foreign Inteligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests had > been sent to Internet companies regarding their users' activity. > “A serious misperception has been created in the wake of the > disclosures around the Verizon national security order, around phone > records as well as the disclosures about the so-called PRISM program,” > Drummond told Fox News. > Google is asking to be able to publish FISA court requests as part of > its biannual "transparency report" in which the company lists the > number and kind of user data requests it receives from the government, > Drummond said. > "Google’s numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these > requests falls far short of the claims being made," Drummond said in > the letter. > Reports from the Guardian and the Washington Post stated that the NSA > had “direct access” to the servers of Google, Facebook, and several > other major internet companies. Drummond stressed that that simply > wasn’t true -- but legal restrictions were preventing him from > offering further details. > “There's no lockbox, there's no backdoor -- none of the other terms > that you've seen in the past few days,” Drummond told Fox News. “We > comply with orders, we deliver information when we receive these > targeted orders." > Earlier Tuesday, Senate leaders emerged from a closed-door meeting > with the NSA chief saying the story about Edward Snowden, the American > who leaked details about secret U.S. surveillance programs, is > enveloped in misinformation and called for public hearings. > The closed-door briefing follows a series of news stories about > federal government programs that have been collecting information > about millions, if not billions, of phone calls and Internet > activities by Americans. > Sources familiar with the briefing also told Fox News that lawmakers > were concerned about more bombshell revelations on super-secret U.S. > surveillance. > Drummond stressed that it was important to remember that Google serves > hundreds of millions of users and that "only a tiny fraction of our > users have ever been subject to having their data requested" through > such orders. > “There's no general surveillance here. We just really want to make the > point that we have nothing to hide here at Google.” > Fox News' Catherine Herridge contributed to this report. > > > Read more: > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/06/12/google-chief-officer-pushes-back-on-nsa-spy-program/#ixzz2W0VuHNjz > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:;>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
