If you have nothing to hide, then why does warrantless wiretapping matter to you ...

[Boojatta]

... and if the government has nothing to hide, then why does it matter to the government that Bradley Manning made some information available?

[fascisthunter]

1. ooopsie

nail meet hammer

[nilram]

4. and goose, meet gander

[teddy51]

2. warrantless wiretapping matters to me, cause it infringes on my already

eroded privacy.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Wow!

This is the 1st of your posts I get. K&R

[JoePhilly]

5. The only people I've heard make that arguement about "nothing to hide"

have been right wingers.

I used to debate right wingers on this when they made that claim ... and I explained then ... once we give this power to GW Bush, don't expect any future President, regardless of party, to give it back.

Importantly, I don't think I've ever heard anyone in the Obama administration make that "nothing to hide" argument, ever.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Did you just hear something go sailing past the top of your head?

I bet that's a rather common occurrence.

NGU.

[JoePhilly]

8. Personal attacks are always a good place to start ... well done.

The point that you seem to have missed is that there has been no claim by anyone (except right wingers) that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear if information they thought was private turns out to not be so.

People have some information that they are willing to share, and some information that they do not want to share.

Our government also has information that they are willing to share, and some information that they do not want to share.

Both of those are reasonable positions.

The OP is claiming that the government has said "if you as a person, have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" ... that is a false claim.

And so, to use that false strawman as a reason to claim that Manning should be able to "share" government information freely, makes no sense.

No such claim has ever been made, and so it does not act as a relevant precedent, as proposed by the OP.

Hope that didn't go over your head.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Sort of like your implication that the OP was, by extension, a right winger?

:rofl:

NGU.

[JoePhilly]

14. Did not suggest that the OP was a right winger in any way ...

It is clear that the OP does not support the "nothing to hide" meme.

The OP was claiming that the government holds that position (which is false) ... but then uses that to demand the government meet the same standard.

And that is why the argument fails. It has nothing to do with the political position of the person who posted, I'm fairly sure from reading other posts from the same poster, that they are not a right winger.

As I said, the only folks who BELIEVE that "if you have nothing to hide, its all fine" are right wingers.

And I'm pretty sure that the person who posted this OP does NOT agree with that position.

They took that right wing talking point, claimed that the government held that position (which is false) and then moved on to the Manning point.

[Solomon]

7. As a lawyer, it makes me cringe to hear

someone say that.

What people don't seem to understand is that "crime" is political. That's why the poor sod who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family gets years in prison, while the financial boondogles being used to bleed us dry are not defined as "crimes".

What is or us not a crime gets changed everytime a legislature meets.

Still think you got nothing to hide?

[JoePhilly]

9. Where did I say I have nothing to hide?

And if you reread my post, I said nothing about poor people stealing bread, or financial fraud.

You are a lawyer ... great ... so try to follow the argument made by the OP.

The OP argues that Manning should be allowed to share government information freely because the government has set a precedent stating "if you have nothing to hide, sharing your information won't hurt you".

The problem with that argument is that no one in the government has made that claim. I would challenge you, as a lawyer, to provide government statements indicating that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

I could also point out that the information the government gathers is not routinely made public, and the info Manning was gathering was distributed widely. That would be another difference we might discuss, but I'll skip that.

As I said in my initial post ... I did hear MANY right wingers use that "nothing to hide" meme as a defense for the increased use of wire taps, but I have never heard any government official under Bush, or Obama, make that claim.

So while I understand the OPs intent, the logical connection doesn't carry through.

[Solomon]

10. whoa whoa. hold on. lol. im on your side.

I didn't mean you personally when I said, "still think you have nothing to hide". I'm speaking to the people who nsay that. The point is, somebody could decide tomorrow that something you've ( not you personally). been doing for years is now a crime. That's why the nothing to hidei argument is bullshit.c

[JoePhilly]

11. Ahhhhh ... lol ... yes, agree ... too funny

I loved debating the right wingers on that point.

They never seemed to get the fact that even if your emails or phone messages had nothing illegal, some if it might still be very damaging to you personally.

Kind of like when people post all kinds of personal stuff on their facebook account, and then wonder why that info blocked a promotion they hoped to get or a job they were interviewing for.

So thanks for responding and explaining your position ... and actually, our exchange is another good example of how "open info" can get misunderstood.

Imagine if some one else was able to grab our other posts ... they could conclude that we were totally at odds, when we were not.

[Boojatta]

12. Is it better to be right or to be understood?

One contributor to this thread said that the OP was the first of my posts that he/she understood.

I suppose that it's more feasible to move in the direction of getting things right than to already be right about everything. Thus, this thread could have some positive value.

[JoePhilly]

15. Every thread has some positive value.

Even those in which there is zero debate.

Personally, I think the threads with the most value are those which create a wide ranging debate.