The question is not whether or not I have something to hide. Everyone has things they wish to keep private and confidential for many reasons. The question instead is whether or not you should surveil me.
Having something to hide implies a possible future transgression that I may commit. Surveilling me is a form of control that you are actively engaging in.
And sometimes the answer to the question is yes. If a nazi is in your town, I think a bit of surveillance to gather information about them is reasonable. But the level of that surveillance and how it's directed is something worth discussing and figuring out. Not a blanket allowance for ubiquitous surveillance in the name of deterring all future transgressions.
Ask Facebook for their confidential data. Ask the cops for unedited bodycam footage. Ask the NSA for internal meeting notes.
@polymerwitch I see a difference in case-based and context surveillance and the existence of institutionalised, no need to legitimise anything anymore, directed surveillance against groups and individuals
@woodbark True, and that's why we should look at the context, institution, individuals, etc asking for surveillance power and discuss why they should have that.
The other side of the argument is holding debates on who might commit future crime and warrants the surveilling.
This is a single user instance used by polymerwitch. Checkout my bio and my commitment to the fediverse for more info.