For a more clear demonstration of harm, think about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and the very real and tangible effects that scandal had.
Cambridge Analytica was a serious problem, although I thought Facebook had cracked down on that kind of thing, and Google did much further in the past.
That’s not what coercion means.
coerce: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats
Don’t cheapen the word by misusing it.
There is a pressure exerted by controlling someone's environment. The use of the word fits.
/ˈCHēpən/
verb
reduce the price of.
"the depreciation of the dollar would cheapen U.S. exports"
synonyms: reduce, lower, lower in price, cut, mark down, discount, depreciate, devalue, depress, put down, keep down, slash, axe
So words cost money now? News to me.
Guccifer was hacking into people's accounts, revealing information of a national interest.
So there is some proportional reaction by law enforcement.
"But when someone innocent gets caught up in it, then it's too late and there's no remedy."
Who are these innocents 'caught up in it', for which there 'no remedy'?
It's possible investigators make mistakes while matching DNA just as well, but we don't deny them the right, because it seems the 'science' supports DNA as evidence. So we use it.
I think that is a real but smaller concern - bigger concerns are large dragnets (arbitrary data collection), lack of oversight (no warrants), lack of proportionality (i.e. local Police getting access to all your searches because someone made a 'noise complaint'), and politicization (i.e. Trump getting search records on political enemies etc.).
My impression is half of HN are into some sort of espionage or something. 50% of people's darkest secret is they sniff their hand after scratching their arse; and they do that in front of everyone without batting an eyelid.
"But what if they get caught up in something", like what, the scandal over who ate the last snack in the break room?
A) gay, and in the closet?
B) a recreational drug user?
C) an activist for a movement the government doesn't like?
D) a supporter of C)?
There's also the problem of selective enforcement. Nearly everyone has done something wrong at some point, even if it was a minor traffic offence. If surveillance is good enough, the government will have dirt on close to 100% of people, leaving it in the position of being able to dig up decades of minor offences whenever it doesn't like you.
Just the narrative that suggests all people should be worried about secrecy; I'll warrant most people's secrets wouldn't cause enough of a stir to dissolve a sugar lump in a hot cup of tea.
If you don't want to post it publically, let me know and I'll create a temporary email to send it to. I'll be sure to delete it after verifying it.
...
Do you feel disgust in reaction to that request? I suspect most people would.
But why? It's not like it's anything sensitive, like a password. I mean...if you don't send the picture, what are you trying to hide? Are you a terrorist? I'm not even a government agent- I don't have the power to throw you in jail.
But, turns out, even when you don't have anything to hide, there's still some things you don't want to share. That's just human.
Not wanting to send you a picture is pretty orthogonal to worrying about the off chance that some gov official will at some point see me naked.
What address do you want me to send to?
It's a conversation. You can tell me everyone you know has secretly murdered at least one person and progress things somewhat (I'm being flippant, of course).
Saying things in public is not "being on record" though. Someone has to make the effort to look up about you, and we all wore a stupid costume, got drunk and made a pass at someone, dropped some litter, swore, or whatever ... in a Western Democracy are you going to shame me for normal behaviours, I think you'll struggle.
>Can you really not imagine how even the most innocent of statements or criticisms can be construed by a paranoid power in the worst possible light? //
Yes, what's the motivation? Fascist takeover? We're all in the same boat aren't we: OMG my neighbor looked at porn, let's burn him at the stake??
Secrets don’t just need to be incriminating, they can also just be embarrassing. People don’t want the world to know they are secretly seeing a lover, or watch a specific type of porn or spend half their time at work browsing HN. Some of those will have real life ramifications.
better, what if they find that they don't support BLM!
There are absolutely issues of legitimate natural security for many things, then it becomes a matter of how we balance privacy vs. the functional needs of the community.
If the FBI legitimately discovers some crazies trying to make a nuclear bomb, I can imagine a Judge authorizing some kinds of searches which would not otherwise be allowed, and that 'most people' would find that justified.
Of course, widespread surveillance, especially of the arbitrary kind (i.e. catch-alls) and information gathering relegated to local-yocal Police Forces, probably are going to be problematic in the view of 'most people'.
And of course, there is the big hypocritical fact that bothers me a lot about this: that Google, who has absolutely no interest other that 'profit' seems to get a free pass on a lot of things while a national security apparatus, who's objectives are entirely in the realm of 'public service' - even when we don't always agree what those objectives are - are somehow more cynically scrutinized.
So the question is: how much of a threat is Guccifer, and what are reasonable means that we can use to go after him? Which will probably always be a hard question to answer.