What's your argument against "warrantless wiretapping is okay, I have nothing to hide"?

[bbernardini]

There's a fool on Usenet who keeps insisting that people who don't agree with warrantless wiretapping must have something to hide. He's conveniently ignoring the fact that very few of the warrants they actually applied for were turned down. He also seems to think that 9/11 happened because we weren't listening in, not because Bush ignored the PDB.

[truebrit71]

1. Tell him to turn over all of his phone records and internet traffic...

...if he has nothing to hide he shouldn't have a problem with it...

[The Stranger]

25. . . . and banking records, email correspondence, personal papers, will, and anything else private.

[SoonerPride]

2. I'd like to put a camera is his bedroom, please.

If he has nothing to hide, then let's all watch what goes on behind closed doors.

idiot.

[northzax]

9. wouldn't be worth it

I hear the lighting is really bad in his mom's basement.

[dkofos]

3. Turn him in for being a terrorist. That will change his mind!!

[no_hypocrisy]

4. I wouldn't want my parents, my teachers, and certainly not my government

to know and to record just about everything I say and do. I'm entitled to an expectation of and the right to privacy and the right to be left alone.

This is still America, dammit!

[OneGrassRoot]

5. It's not about having anything to hide, it's about

The Constitution.

Given all the smoke and mirrors of the B*ush Administration and their repeated failure to adhere to the Constitution and provide transparency we citizens have a right to, they're the ones who obviously have something to hide.

[Richard Steele]

6. Ask him if it will be OK when President Hillary does it. nm

[havocmom]

21. That outta do it!

:rofl:

[NewJeffCT]

38. I had a letter published with that exact same conclusion

In the Hartford Courant... this was not long after the original story broke. RW apologist Kathleen Parker had written an article defending warrantless wiretapping by claiming it had caught terrorists who were trying to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

I first quoted Republican Bob Barr on the Brooklyn Bridge incident - even somebody as partisan as Barr scoffed at those so-called terrorists, who wanted to use blowtorches to destroy the bridge.

My ending line was something like, "And if you think Ms. Parker would have come to the same conclusion if the president were named Clinton instead of Bush, I have a certain bridge to sell you."

[Richard Steele]

43. That's excellent!

I really like how you tied it all together
with that last sentence. :thumbsup:

[rateyes]

Tell him to make sure that when a Democrat is elected

president, he remains consistent on his view.

[quinnox]

7. It violates the right to privacy

Do I have a problem with wiretapping terrorists or suspected terrorists? No!

But you can't just go around listening to private conversations without a shred of evidence.

[Uben]

8. Good then....

....you must also have no objection to being jailed without Habeas Corpus for an undetermined amount of time without access to counsel. Oh, I know you have nothing to hide, we just have to make sure. It'll take about three years. Get comfortable.

[Throwing Stones]

10. First they came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. I bow my head at a far superior response

well quoted.

[Throwing Stones]

22. Thanks - first thing that pops into my head whenever I hear the "nothing to hide" crap

As other responses have alluded to, what if, in the name of fighten' terra, we suspend the Second Amendment, too?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

11. One argument could be

regardless of whether I have anything to hide or not, all citizens ought be protected from the invasive nature of the state. The state should have to prove to a judge why they need to tap a phone, open mail, follow someone around etc. Otherwise, they could easily move from warrentless wiretaping to warrentless arresting. A barrier is always a good idea in these cases........ :shrug:

[Beelzebud]

12. Tell the jackass to read the constitution and bill of rights sometime.

These are the same dumb fucks that were worried about "black helicopters" and the 2nd amendment during Clinton's term.

[wildbilln864]

13. He's obviously an idiot or a provacatuer IMHO.

The wire tapping was going on before 911 as I understand it.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

14. It's the principle, Usenet dummy

We hold our freedoms dear not necessarily because we want or need to utilize them, but rather IN CASE we need them. What seems like a trivial example of walking all over our rights today could very quickly and easily blossom into an Orwellian nightmare tomorrow (Rove's "permanent majority", anyone?).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. you don't KNOW what you may have to hide.

this is not only about crimes and misdemeanors.

How many billions are spent in preventing corporate spying? countless. If you have a new idea, and are waiting on financing before going the patent, licensing and building route, domestic spying allows a company with governmental pull to get a step up and steal the new iPhone or iPod. we have plenty of secrets to keep, EVEN IF no laws are broken. The next time someone tells you that, demand that he turn over his tax returns, his credit card invoices, and his cell phone records, telling him that you will use his private data to earn a profit for yourself. Then tell him that that is precisely what people in charge of these programs can do.

[Sparkly]

16. Tell him it's UNAMERICAN. nt

[SoonerPride]

17. ASk him what does Bush have to hide, always declaring Executive Privilege?

We the people have a right to know what our hired help is doing, not the other way round.

[ThomCat]

19. That argument ends the entire concept of privacy

and negates many civil rights.

If you agree to searches, then you have no privacy. If you object to searches, and they can use that as a reason to search you, then you have no privacy. Either way, your privacy is now gone. In one motion you've opened up everyone to constant surveilance.

Any argument in support of surveilance needs to accept that there are times when surveilance is not appropriate, and needs to articulate the limits of that surveilance.

[Atman]

20. Warrantless wiretapping is about THEM having something to hide, not US.

Think about it...our very rule of law comes down to the simple tenet that we're all expected to play by the rules. Tyrants can't play their evil tyrant games if their subjects are free to discuss anything they want...such as ways to overthrow the tyrant. So the big scary war is given as a reason to illegally wire tap citizens, but as we've seen already it's really just an excuse to collect information on enemies of the administration. As we told it would.

So it's not about YOU. It's about NOW. It's about when the government finally, finally go too far and evokes outrage and the citizens begin to really organize. It will be much more difficult to do so once we've given that government carte blanche to listen in on our private communications and read our private mail.

.

[The Stranger]

31. People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

[jojo54]

23. Warrant-less wiretapping - 3 reasons to hate it!

1) NOBODY, but NOBODY will listen to MY conversation, unless I want them to....and I don't want them to.
2) The Constitution says it's illegal.
3) the pResident in chief is trying to change what the Constitution says and that's TREASON!!!!!

[Old and In the Way]

24. Love these new conservative ideas about government invasion into

one's private life. It's as consistent as their views on fiscal responsibility and nation-building. Honestly, they are neither conservative or liberal, they just support mindless veneration of their Maximum Leader.

[bunkerbuster1]

26. Not "very few" were turned down. A total of FOUR, last I heard

out of tens of thousands of requests.

All that FISA ever asked of the Bush Crime Family was for them to put in a request within a couple days of actually doing the wiretap. These fuckers couldn't even do that.

So tell your Usenet idiot that it's not about whether you have "nothing to hide." It's about a long-standing principle in the constitution that unreasonable searchs and seizures extends to private conversations, and reasonable expectations of privacy, and an Administration that doesn't give a rat's ass about the law.

And ask him again--why can't the Administration follow the goddamned law?

[Mz Pip]

27. How does he know

he has nothing to hide? Does he know what they are looking at? How they determine what is important or not?

How nice that he has so much trust in the government. Wonder if he'll feel the same when Hillary is President (or Obama or any other Democrat.)

It's interesting that conservatives who traditionally have little use for large, invasive government seem to love large invasive government when their guy is doing it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Tell him to post his address in public.

Along with what times he'll be home, and where his kids go to school.

[Solon]

29. Just tell him you know he masturbated 3 times yesterday. n/t

[Dollface]

30. How do you know you have nothing to hide? Perhaps they changed the law when you weren't looking.

I remember when perjury was a crime and carrying shampoo on a plane wasn't.

[Lex]

32. Do you mind a PEEPING TOM in your window at night, even though

you may not be engaging in illegal activity in your house?

That's what I liken it to.

[hiphopnation]

33. isn't it a fourth amendment issue?

:shrug:

the issue is not the content of what's uncovered during wiretapping, but the act of wiretapping itself being illegal.

[ProudDad]

34. Ask him if he'd feel the same if

President Michael Moore or President Nancy Pelosi or President Dennis Kucinich or President Jimmy Carter (whichever works with his political deviance)

were listening in to his business???

[PVnRT]

35. Write it off as another moran on the internets? (n/t)

[originalpckelly]

36. If I haven't done anything wrong, why should I be treated as if I'm a criminal suspect?

[Jane Austin]

37. "Does your brother-in-law have anything to hide? Does your sister ever

call you on that phone?"

It's not like they're making any fine distinctions.

[AllegroRondo]

39. then you wont mind posting your full name, address, SSN, and where you work?

Or, if someone says that in person:

"then you wont mind letting me look through your wallet/purse?"

[Boo Boo]

40. Political freedom means my right to run a campaign without Dick Cheney

and Karl Rove spying on me. It means freedom of association, without Dick Cheney spying on me. Remind the man that under totalitarian rule spying on the opposition is job #1, and that things he considers "nothing to hide" quickly become "something to hide."

Cripes, has it really been that long since the Church Committee?

Remind this dip-shit that our Constitution is a detailed description of what it is to be free. None of the requirements are optional. Right to privacy and freedom of association go hand in hand. We cannot have a legitimate Democratic process without those things, and we certainly aren't free if our government is spying on our political activities.

[demgurl]

41. I remember this being discussed before....

wish I had saved the thread but someone looked up the guys web site and found his name and from there could find out many more things. They posted (not here but on the original forum) his address, name, phone number and I believe maybe even how much his house was worth. Boy did that guy get mad!

It is one thing to talk the talk and say you would only be mad if you had something to hide. It is a totally different thing when all of a sudden all of your information is put out there. Well it is the same thing with the government only stronger. There is no law stating you may not google someone and post their information but with our government there is a law and, in fact, a constitution. That constitution guarantees your privacy no matter who is in office. (Democratic or Republican) I would put forth that if it is all on the up and up then they would go through the courts to get warrants. Why would you not go through the transparency of a court system (I believe the stats are that the court has turned down one warrant for wire tapping with this administration) unless you are doing something you do not need to be doing?

I think all of us are for wiretapping and catching terrorists as long as it is done within the legal confines of the law.

[texastoast]

42. The Founding Fathers would say the Usenet fool

doesn't deserve any security if he is so willing to give up the freedoms so hard won.

[L. Coyote]

44. If spying is abused for political purposes, this has nothing to do with nothing to hide

The "nothing to hide" premise refers to illegal conduct. If the spying is done to gain political advantage, every politico has to be concerned that the spying is being done to alter the outcome of elections, not to find terrorists.

To find crimes, there is no need for warrantless spying. To do political spying, a warrant will not be issued. THAT SIMPLE!

[Vanje]

45. i'd place a spotting scope on the sidewalk...

...in front of hs house, and aim it at his front window. And I'd watch.

[yodermon]

46. Tell him that President Hillary could wiretap him for his political opinions. n/t

[DBoon]

47. the more "they" know about you, the easier it is to make something up

Knowing the details of a person's private life makes it easier to create a credible though entirely false slander

You may be innocent, but if they know every detail of your life, you can be made to look guilty and will have an impossible time establishing your innocence

[ljm2002]

48. If you have nothing to hide...

...then you'll have no problem when they install cameras in your home, right?

You'll have no problem with having all of your conversations monitored then.

What they are saying is, who needs privacy? And my answer to that is, I need it and so do we all. It is an inalienable right. It's what keeps the government out of our bedrooms and our homes (usually). The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for an investigation, and that is indeed how it should be. Without that, we are at the mercy of the government. And no matter how much propaganda tries to tell us that the US government is benign, anyone with even a casual acquaintance with our recent history (i.e. the last 50 years) knows otherwise.

Just ask them: do you really want all of your phone and email messages to be subject to review by a Hillary Clinton administration?

That usually shuts 'em right up.