u mad, state?

In other news, the US refuses to assure UK judges that they won't execute Julian Assange.
- the whole plan is to get him over here and then kill him or let him die of neglect.
  
  May as well get in early.
  Julian Assange didn't kill himself.
  
  I suspect they’d prefer that he die in prison over there, but if not then in prison over here. I don’t think they want to ever take this to trial, because it’s been a farce from the start.
  
  Well, Epstein's cell is empty at the moment.
- Does the uk not have a law against executions and if so would the not be breaking said law by extraditing him.
  
  That's exactly what they're arguing here. However the US is trying to use a non-answer to avoid this, and in the past that's worked.
- Regardless of any judicial or legal red tape preventing that extradition, are we seriously operating under the assumption that the United States government would execute him?
  
  are we seriously operating under the assumption that the United States government would execute him?
  Legally, UK and EU courts must consider this, because sending someone to a country where they will be executed for their crimes is a breach of human rights.
  By the strict reading of the law, he could be extradited for life in prison. If he was being extradited to be sentenced to death, that would be a no go.
  The US are skirting and pushing the bounds of UK law here. Unfortunately, they will likely get away with it, because the English are pussies.
- Well, can't send him there then, right?
- I don't like Julian Assange, but I think that if he were found guilty of his crimes of espionage, that he has already served out more than a proportional sentence in exile.

Everytime someone says they don't have anything to hide I ask them what the pin of their phone is and to give me their phone. Suddenly that's something different...
- I once asked a friend if he trusted the lock on his phone (brand new iPhone 15 Pro Max, latest and greatest). He told me he did. I asked him if I could use his phone while it was locked, and he told me "No, I don't trust you. You would probably hack it or something." That statement says two things:
  He only cares about attacks on privacy on a personal level, which is the mental flaw lots of people have.
  He doesn't actually trust the lock on his phone, but refuses to admit it.
  By the way, here's a few fun gimmicks you can pull on iPhone users:
  See if you can swipe left to view widgets on the lock screen. I was able to get someone's address this way. He told me the whole time "There's nothing you can find there." and then afterwards said "Ah, crap."
  If there is a lock screen mini widget (under the time) for a clock or related feature, tap on it and it will open the clock app. You can also get there if you can swipe down to access control center if the "timer" button is enabled there. You can then make it look like you unlocked their phone, and start reading off their alarm names. This one has freaked out a lot of people.
  If they realize how you got there and try disabling control center access on the lock screen (as they should, FaceID is fast enough people!), you can see if you can access Siri and say "View my alarms".
  
  I can see why your friend would assume you could hack their phone based on how specific these steps are.
  
  Me: graphene phone with notifications hidden until unlocked. No voice assistant whatsoever. I guess the only thing you can do is take pictures from lock screen but that's not really useful. It doesn't show gallery of previous photos.
- There is a difference between having nothing to hide and not closing the door when talking a shit
  
  What I'm hearing is that people have an inert desire for privacy, EVEN if they don't have anything to hide (what are you hiding in the toilet?) I don't see why that wouldn't extend into the digital realm....
  
  And what is it?
  
  A right to privacy? Not in my country, thank you very much.
  The government has every right to watch you take a shit and if you don't acknowledge that then you must be conspiring to deprive us of our freedoms.

Say whatever you want, Snowden's a fucking hero for sharing this.
- Don't forget the people that tried to blow the whistle on the NSA prior to Snowden

A 'State' is not inherently bad. That's just libertarian propaganda/dogma. Self-interested psychopaths in charge of a state is bad..
- Funny thing about ancap libertarianism is that they've correctly identified that power can lead to tyranny, but they're completely oblivious to the power that corporatism (the conclusion of lassez-faire capitalism) results in.
  
  They often are Christians, so they apply fundamentalist style thinking and cannot challenge the assumptions they made.
  
  tHe mArKeT wIlL rEgUlAtE tHeM
- States always wind up being run by self-interested psychopaths.
  That's not a "flaw;" it's the fundamental nature of the concept.
  
  We need a strong authoritarian leader and a massive police force to keep the people in line.
- Lol lots of people think that no entity has the right to monopolize violence against a population.
- Unfortunately it's usually self-interested psychopaths who seek out and obtain those positions, especially since you need to be a bit psychotic to do what's required to get there.
- The state is kinda bad and it's not only Right-Libertarians who say that. Even so, leaking documents is not always bad. Like, the Abu Ghraib leak was objectively good.
  
  Abu Graib wasn't leaked. Amnesty International talked to prisoners that were released. Then the Red Cross used their oversight powers to get in and make an official report. Then a soldier reported the crimes to the Army's version of the FBI, (CID). The Army then did an investigation and started arresting people.
- Oh boy, here comes the political drama. Can we not do this?
  
  Too late
- any state is bad because taxes are evil
  
  Why are taxes evil, I like roads
  
  Taxes used for public good and infrastructure are what taxes are supposed to be for. And they should be raised and collected proportionally to your wealth.
  Neither of those statements describe how the US handles taxes.
  
  Ohh man that one must hurt

Man I really do enjoy reading the classifieds

Warthunder forum be like

This argument of "nothing to hide" always reminds me of Google, show me this man's balls, please by Eric Andre.
- Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  Google, show me this man's balls, please
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

Putin Alert! Putin Alert! This guy supports Vladimir Putin! He is undermining the US so that the Russians can invade! Also, the Chinese! Also the... uh... Cubans? Venezuelans? Quebecians? Idk, but its bad! They're coming to take your freedom! Protect the NSA! PROTECT THE NSA! THEY STAND BETWEEN YOU AND TYRANNY!
- Inb4 some Quebec person comes in and complains about “Quebecians”
  
  Phonecians are from phoenix.
  
  I'll allow it, in fact here in Quebecistan we call Cuba comrades. Always have. One of our favorite vacation destination too.
- Quebecians
  😂
  
  Canadian bacon!

*grabs popcorn*

Nothing to hide...
It's the same reason I don't support free speach: I've got nothing to say.
/s

BUT BUT BUT THOSE ARE ILLEGAL TO SHARE

Bruh it's the government. They have plenty of things to hide.

I mean...the state does have legitimate things to hide beyond their spying programs. Not every person that spills government secrets is as careful as Snowden.

Government always tries to establish as much power imbalance as possible

played well.

Memes r duamb

Sorry, but the cases are too different. The secrets of the government serve a completely different purpose than those of the citizens.
- Or so you are told by people unwilling to be under strict oversight from independent authorities.
  "I do this for good reasons, trust me" is not a valid argument.
  
  “I do this for good reasons, trust me” is not a valid argument.
  Yes. The problem is, when one country has had a intelligence agency and the other has not, the one with the agency has a advantage. At least, under the same conditions.
  I see the tension between a republican (res publica, "thing of the public") State and the existence of such secrets. The question is if a state without this could exist under the current circumstances. There are a lot room for doubts here, I fear.
- Is that justification for spying on civilians?
  
  I never say that. Thats a straw man-argument.
- The government is an illegitimate state. We live in a dictatorship on stolen indigenous ground. Fuck Charles and fuck the government.
  
  Not all of us lived in America.

False equivalence is false— but, sure, anything to make espionage seem OK
- Seeing as this was posted in c/privacy, I believe the intent was rather to say "actually that whole 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' premise government espionage programs enjoy thrusting on their citizens is patently bullshit, and they know it, as despite saying it to you while spying on you they make it illegal to spy on them."
  
  Using paranoia to justify a logical fallacy - and espionage - isn’t a very good argument.
- This post actually illustrates the opposite of your interpretation. Satire generally extrapolates on the actual real events with logical evolutions that demonstrate that the original premise was laughable at best, and at worst creates a double standard.