Always bad when the net policy is made by old people which confuse an remote control with an smartphone.

Ugh, so tired of this old argument. Nothing to hide doesn't mean everything to show. There, now let's get on with our lives.

That's the thing though...
...everyone has something to hide.

Meanwhile we can't release the voter both footage because privacy of the voters, destroying Right to Information Act because privacy, if you have a lot of money then only do you start to need privacy after all!

I see a lot of "camera's in their bedroom" arguments.
That's a bit unfair, because the Indian government doesn't have camera's installed in your bedroom.

May I instead suggest to Indians to buy Huawei/ZTE phones, routers or camera's in your own bedroom that point outside to public places?
I mean the public has nothing to hide right?
Right?

You have nothing to hide?

I used to work in advertising.

I was just doing my job, and striving to do it well, to the very best of my abilities, to serve my client, by maximally getting into your mind, manipulating you, manipulating your perceptions, your preferences, your purchases, by insidiously shaping your associations and implanting suggestions you would not realise happening.

This was over 20 years ago, before Bill Hicks saved me by telling me to kill myself, and I left advertising for good, promising to never do it again.

The things I would have done to you, without your ken, had I then had access to the data-mining available today... ... just the same as those who are still in advertising are doing to you now. [And the resources my team of 2 had, were miniscule, compared to those with millions and billions to invest, and we still managed to shape the culture and prevailing perceptions, so think what kind of influence they have...]

Nothing to hide?

Sure, let advertisers know everything about you, to ease their way playing you like a puppet without you realising.

Nothing to hide?

Why are you not walking around naked then? Just thermal regulation? Or to preserve your dignity? By preserving your privacy? Are you sure you have nothing to hide? If still sure, by all means, invite every perverted voyeur into your bathroom and bedroom and beyond.

You surely have at least two things to hide.

Not hiding them does not just harm you and cause you loss, it harms everybody else too. Your duty to poke big brother (or big baron or big bot or big blight or big bully or big bank) in the eye, is not just to yourself. It's to everybody, each and all.

You have much to hide.

One of many countries who have recently decided that basic liberty is more trouble than it's worth. Our governments all just need to admit that we are engaged in informational WW3.

Fuck that. RFK wants me to work on his plantations for daring to be born with autism.

What about if a person working for the public sector contacts a journalist about corruption? Or if a nurse contacts a journalist on how bad a hospital (owned by public sector) is controlled? Are those things that are worth hiding? And how should a normal person hide it if everything is monitored?

And what about the future? Even if it is currently legal to be positive to radical ideas such as trans-people, immigration or environment, how will they ensure that a future government doesn't make one of those things illegal and then comes after people who endorsed the radical idea?

Why does this meth still persist? Do people not realise that you could be doing good but the government might not want you to?

Ok so let's get those files and only redact the victims

A lot of countries are increasingly overreaching with privacy. There is global-wide coordination going on that we haven't seen since the leftist international during Cold War, but this time it's coming from the right.

Everyone should be bothered by surveillance, it ain't about wrongdoing, it's about further empowering the people who think us suffering and dying for their profits is perfectly acceptable.

I'm sure they're fine with a live camera stream of their bathroom and bedroom? If not, then they are hypocritical pieces of shit.

Conservatives in the states have been saying exactly this for decades.

The Stasi said the same thing, and similar levels of surveillance are significantly cheaper now.

"Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'." ― Terry Pratchett, Snuff

Nothing to hide = nothing to show.

Oh dear god, I thought this was the US Supreme Court, which is bound by the 4th Amendment. Turns out this is the Supreme Court from the State of Telangana in India.

I have a lot of things I want to hide from every single government.

I don't get why they never suggest making it completely public every email, phone call and bank transaction of politicians and judges then... also, please, force them to wear a chip so we can always know their location... it's ok to give it some hours of delay for security reasons, we just need to know where you have been to, no need to worry if you have nothing to hide.

"I have nothing to hide" is such a dumb argument.

Are you always going to have nothing to hide?

Because it'll be too late to start caring about privacy when you do.

Years ago, I read about a guy who rode his bike past a house that was being robbed. The police acquired data from Google placing him in the area at that time. While he didn’t do anything wrong and had nothing to hide, I assume he had to hire a lawyer and go through a time-consuming and stressful process to prove his innocence. That was the turning point for me where I began focusing heavily on privacy.

Until they do. What is legal today could be illegal tomorrow.