Comment by botanical76
16 days ago
My interpretation is that it is an argument against trust in authority in privacy discussions.
A: Privacy matters! B: Why should you care if you have nothing to hide? A: If you have nothing to hide, then give me the password to your Facebook. B: I don't trust you with that, but I trust my governments and relevant authorities.
The point is that B's faith in authority is flawed as the "powers that be" are an eternally shifting target. By agreeing to government surveillance, you place trust in every subsequent government, even the ones you would rather not.
I always look at this from the other side...
Side A abuses (legal, governmental) power, and instead of "lynching" them for that, we turn the issue into "this will become bad only because of side B will do the same". To me it looks like someone supports side A, and wants to limit the "badness" of whatever they did, but still can't support the thing, so they find the way out by claiming that the other side will do something bad with that data, as if the collecting the data (chats,...) isn't bad enough by itself.
I understand your analogy with friends and facebook, and explaining that stuff to your grandma in this way would probably work... maybe even better if you used "your neighbor Sally works for the government, she could read your chats too, do you really want that?"... but on a technical "forum", it (to me) gives off very politically biased vibes.
For what it's worth I don't support this Labour government one iota. I fully admit to being extremely biased against the Reform party, much in the same way that I'm biased against standing in front of a fully loaded 16 wheeler moving at 60mph.
Exactly this. What I'm talking about is just a specific instance of the generalised rule you've stated.
That shifting target can also shift immediately it doesnt need an election.