• AAA@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    The claim to have “nothing to hide” was not just born our of ignorance, but also out of comfort - to not having to do anything about it.

    Now that even the last one accepted that they do indeed have something to hide, but in order to justify their own inaction, it’s labeled as inevitable: privacy is not real.

    They are lying to themselves, because doing otherwise would mean they have to admit being wrong.

    • Manalith@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      The ‘nothing to hide’ argument seems a lot like that ‘first they came for socialists and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist…’ quote. Sure you have nothing to hide right now, but what happens when something you weren’t hiding becomes a target.

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It’s true that they say both things out of comfort.

      Though to be completely honest, both statements are not contradictory. They are not necessarily accepting that they do have something worth hiding, but just stating that hiding is too difficult these days anyway. That does not mean (sadly) that they would start doing it were it easier, just that they have even less of a motive to care about it now that hiding is so much harder (to the point of almost being “a myth”).

      I’m not saying they are right, I’m saying that lack of consistency is not the problem with that attitude. It’s not a “shift”, just a consistent continuation of a lazy attitude towards comfort.

    • 🦇 Batman 🦇@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      i think its a propganda to destroy privacy like the one “police are public protector” only the high ups and they know what police means but the general public dont .