this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
495 points (98.4% liked)

Privacy

43957 readers
469 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is in India, but coming soon to a country near you (or the one you are in already).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I heard a lawyer argue something like this once in court, regarding the the fourth and fifth amendments:

These laws are not meant to protect the innocent, they are meant to protect criminals. The founding fathers who penned it were traitors and seditionists who fought a war against their own country. They wrote these laws so that guilty people would be able to avoid punishment if proper procedures aren't followed, and certain rights aren't upheld.

I'm not sure how much I agree with that, but it was definitely an interesting take.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Whoever said that is full of shit. The right to silence was born out of the religious persecution that was rife in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, where coerce confessions and forcing people to incriminate themselves, even if it was bullshit, was commonplace. Also religion played a role. Lying in some circumstances was a mortal sin, but at the same time people acknowledged that people would naturally lie in order to protect themselves. So in order to make it possible for people to not commit mortal sins and not lie to authorities, the simple right to not answer questions and not have their silence used against them was eventually mandated.

If people did not have the right to silence, all the authorities have to do is just coerce a confession out of a suspect and not investigate anything else. This happens all the time in China and Japan. Japan technically does have the right to silence in their constitution, but in practice it does not exist. If you refuse to answer questions and clam up during interrogations, they will take it as an admission of guilt and as far as I know, no judge refused that.

In China you are required to answer any 'relevant' question posed by police, you only have the right to deny irrelevant questions. So basically if they accuse you of robbing and murdering some shopkeeper, you have to give an account of yourself, but if they ask you what you had for lunch today, you can decline to answer that question. Stupid, but it is what it is.

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

The right to silence was born out of the religious persecution that was rife in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, where coerce confessions and forcing people to incriminate themselves, even if it was bullshit, was commonplace

I think that's what he was talking about. His argument is that the Founders did things that could incriminate themselves to their old government, and there were no protections in place to shield them from, for instance, self incrimination. The 'validity' of the law, I think, isn't particularly germane.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] cornishon@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 days ago

Everyone should watch that lecture, but TL;DW is ANYTHING you say to the police will be used against you and NOTHING you say to the police will ever help you.

If you're not convinced, you really need to watch that lecture.