• habitualTartare@lemmy.world
    64·
    9 months ago

    The origin of the quote is not Goebbels.

    Someone else has traced the quotation to a novel by Upton Sinclair in The Profits of Religion (do a books.google.com search for the phrase and you will find it.

    In short, it is highly unlikely that Goebbels said this. As is usually the case with such quotations, no one who cites it provides a source.

    Randall Bytwerk, expert in Nazi propaganda (Prof. Randall Bytwerk)

    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30683/is-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear-a-line-used-by-joseph#40126

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    383·
    9 months ago

    It really comes down to trust, or the lack thereof. People don’t trust their governments and governments don’t trust their people. I think this mistrust originates from governments so often being imposed on the people, rather than the government being subordinate to the people. If the government were truly subordinate to the people, I don’t think privacy would be nearly as much of a concern.

    • nehal3m@sh.itjust.works
      331·
      9 months ago

      This makes sense on the face of it, but trust is fleeting. Let’s say we do establish trust in a democratically elected government and allow them to ‘violate’ our privacy for the common good. Who’s to say the next elected representatives are just as trustworthy? If the laws and systems we create allow for violation of privacy in the long term they will be abused at some point.

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        73·
        9 months ago

        Well, I think there’s much more to making a government subordinate to its people than just electing representatives, especially if our options for representation are limited. I’m talking about a more radical departure from the status quo, about making the people the ultimate authority.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          12·
          9 months ago

          Not sure how that works exactly but I’ll still want my privacy from “the people.” if there is the potential for abuse there will be abuse, I’d rather limit the data leak right at the source.

          • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
            3·
            9 months ago

            I’m not necessarily opposed to privacy rights, but it would ultimately be the government that would have to enforce those rights, so how do you ensure that the government adequately enforces your privacy rights and that there isn’t any possibility for abuse?

            • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              9 months ago

              It will always be a battle. Any form of government will always want access to your data. The biggest danger is complacency. If it gets to the point where the majority don’t even care about privacy all is lost.

    • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      62·
      9 months ago

      Is it just the government?

      I am trying to think if your neighbours would rat you out to other groups.

      Having seen how “the gentlemen of the press” behave, I can easily believe there are people who would guard their privacy jealously to protect themselves from the feckless bastards who are “brave crusaders for justice and freedom”.

      Nothing to do with the government. Nothing to do with breaking the law, or even coming close. Just because they have no desire to see their lives on the front pages of every paper and their personal lives made so much fodder for the public.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      9 months ago

      Plowed all 41 books last year. Damn. Sometimes I’d have to put the book down and think on a thing or two. There were also a couple of times I had to put one down because I couldn’t stop laughing.

      Never read anything that had me in true awe of the author. Stephen King blows me away with his realistic characters and dialog, but Pratchett was next level on everything.

      How could a single mind contain so much?!

  • Krydex@slrpnk.net
    232·
    9 months ago

    Who would you be more suspicious of? A neighbor who always keeps their blinds closed? Or the neighbor who always peeks out of their window?

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      14·
      9 months ago

      Or the neighbor who always peeks out of their window? who insists that they must be allowed to stick a periscope through everyone’s blinds and have a look around?

    • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      I always keep my curtains closed. But that’s just because my front room is a mess and I can’t be arsed tidying it.

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    18·
    9 months ago

    Upton Sinclair also referenced a similar argument in his book The Profits of Religion, published in 1917 :

    Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends — people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.” My answer was that a study of many labor cases had taught me the methods of the agent provocateur. He is quite willing to take real evidence if he can find it; but if not, he has familiarized himself with the affairs of his victim, and can make evidence which will be convincing when exploited by the yellow press.[2]

  • squid_slime@lemm.ee
    17·
    9 months ago

    my friend who is ex military, has a smart house built around amazon Alexa said he had nothing to hide, when i rebuffed with how that phrase has nazi ties he’d gone white.

    propaganda is an amazingly powerful thing all you need is a catchy sentence and itll will be repeated years after.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    206·
    9 months ago

    I don’t know about the quote in question, but I do find it quite absurd when people still feel the need to distance the American government from the Nazis, when it is a well documented fact that the actions of the former inspired and shaped the latter with systems that either still exist in one form or another, or have left a horrific legacy (Native American reservations, the prison industrial complex, racial wealth gaps, to name a few off the top of my head).

  • LoudWaterHombre@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    13·
    9 months ago

    OK so I’m a privacy advocate. I’m pro privacy, pro simplicity and accessibility for none techies. I’m pro Snowden and everything.

    But,

    there is no evidence for this attribution. You can often find it in reader comments and on social media with the source: “Goebbels, speech on the introduction of the GeStaPo 1933”. There was no such speech, nor was there an “Introduktion der Gestapo”, an expression that is completely unusual in German.

    Edit: I actually found the interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flej-73VLW8) but can’t even find the spot where he’s actually making the claim seen in the picture. What the fuck is this???

    • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      310·
      9 months ago

      I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the post if that is your takeaway from it.

      • LoudWaterHombre@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        15·
        9 months ago

        No if it’s misinformation trying to sell a feeling rather than facts it’s actually the right thing to focus on. As I said, it’s not like I’m defending the argument, that you have nothing to hide yada yada, I’m not the guy that needs convincing, I’m already trying to convince others.

        • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          26·
          9 months ago

          He goes on to say that privacy is the foundation of all other rights.

          Also the actual idea that “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is bullshit seems to be quite importance.

          Whether you realise it or not, you are implying that because he got the source of the quote wrong, everything else he said is not worth listening to. That somehow he is invalidated as a source for EVERYTHING HE SAYS because of this one thing.

          Which most peoplew ould fundametnally disagree with.

          • LoudWaterHombre@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            10·
            9 months ago

            Well I already said multiple times, I’m not arguing against privacy, but the fact this whole post wraps around “i didnt know the origin of the quote” and its not only false but also he apparently didn’t even make that claim in the first place is baffling to me. There are one million and two good arguments for privacy and against the stupidity of the nothing to hide reply, but spreading emotionally manipulative misinformation to create an artificial feeling of a deadbeat argument is not the right approach.

            I don’t get why you put so much effort into shifting the view away from half the content of the post instead of just admitting to misinformation or sending sources. There are people out there that see text on a picture with, Snowden interview in the back and actually think it’s legit information. It’s necessary to highlight fact from fiction so people don’t get a wrong sense of reality, which is a problem we are currently facing across the globe.

            my friend who is ex military, has a smart house built around amazon Alexa said he had nothing to hide, when i rebuffed with how that phrase has nazi ties he’d gone white.

            propaganda is an amazingly powerful thing all you need is a catchy sentence and itll will be repeated years after.

            Just look at this comment from @squid_slime@lemm.ee

            • squid_slime@lemm.ee
              2·
              9 months ago

              the quite had been used by authoritarian regimes, as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.

              not to say your wrong as your not just saying that using Nazis as a vehicle to get the point across isn’t completely dishonest, usually best to use a more broad approach like “authoritarian regimes” rather than Nazis

            • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              25·
              9 months ago

              Because it is one phrase in one part of one frame of the entire post.

              Yeah it’s wrong. Plenty of people have pointed it out already (you appear to have read the entire thread so you cannot have missed the fact other people have pointed it out as well).

              But, as I said, to suggest that that is the most important part of the interview – he fucked up and that is ALL WE MUST PAY ATTENTION TO – is… just wrong. It is, quite frankly, something the NSA would have us to do discredit everything else he says.

              Also there are quotes from three or four other people in the entire length of the post. All of which I am pretty sure are accurately sourced. Unless you think Terry Pratchett stole his work from Stalin.

              • LoudWaterHombre@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                5·
                9 months ago

                It’s actually two frames and the title of the entire post that points to this conclusion, so yeah… Why are you coming at me with these straw man arguments that the NSA would and take into consideration I believe Terry Pratchett stole from Stalin. What does that have to so with the fact that the claim is neither correct 'nor did he actually say that in the interview.

                I have not read every comment, but I’m thrilled seeing your debate there. I’m going to look into it.

                Edit: Haha “plenty of people” dude why are you so butthurt and offended about it?

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    13·
    9 months ago

    I usually ask if they also shit with the door open on a public restroom, since they got nothing to hide.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    10·
    9 months ago

    Easy way to shut up any idiot: If you got nothing to hide, gimme all your passwords, also all the info on your credit cards.

    • cordlesslamp
      9·
      9 months ago

      Don’t forget to pinky promise that you will not do anything bad with those information and you will keep it secure.