Privacy matters even if “you have nothing to hide”(write.privacytools.io)
write.privacytools.io
Privacy matters even if “you have nothing to hide”
https://write.privacytools.io/freddy/why-privacy-matters-even-if-you-have-nothing-to-hide
156 comments
I do not think it is a given that the general public feels powerless about privacy.
Why would someone take steps to empower themselves if they see no need for such power?
Why would someone take steps to empower themselves if they see no need for such power?
You're right: people don't feel a need for that. And it's because all the "spying" ironically happens secretly.
May be if every person got an email every time their data is sold to the third party, things would have changed quickly.
May be if every person got an email every time their data is sold to the third party, things would have changed quickly.
I received this email. It is very strange. I had never heard of the company either but found they are sellers of B2B contact info.
There is no option to request my info be deleted, or even to correct the info so people aren't harassing the wrong person (some of the information wasn't right, they are selling my parents and families addresses instead of mine). They ALSO have a free app that allows up to 5 contact a day, so they might even be giving this info out for free and I'm assuming someone is harvesting as much free data as they can.
It's absurd that there is an entire industry based on selling private info that they themselves acquired from other companies. It's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private information
I ended up moving as much data as It's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private informationI could to a private server, but this really isn't the solution. Most people don't have IT backgrounds to be able to do this sort of thing. I hope more people become aware and sIt's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private informationtart pressuring govt. officials to change laws.
Edit: formatting
There is no option to request my info be deleted, or even to correct the info so people aren't harassing the wrong person (some of the information wasn't right, they are selling my parents and families addresses instead of mine). They ALSO have a free app that allows up to 5 contact a day, so they might even be giving this info out for free and I'm assuming someone is harvesting as much free data as they can.
It's absurd that there is an entire industry based on selling private info that they themselves acquired from other companies. It's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private information
I ended up moving as much data as It's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private informationI could to a private server, but this really isn't the solution. Most people don't have IT backgrounds to be able to do this sort of thing. I hope more people become aware and sIt's disgusting that people have built an industry on buying and selling private informationtart pressuring govt. officials to change laws.
Edit: formatting
I'd say things like moralism also play a role here. We've allowed people to believe in untruths like the idea that people who value privacy have something to hide, or even that the average person has nothing to hide. The latter can be easily seen when you see what people seem naturally prone to sharing on social media that the average non-social media viewer is astounded by.
ironically?
That is also socially induced behavior because we value understatement apart from few exceptions.
Tell them they should do it for their kids and they will comply. It is also the truth that when people give away control, that they also implicitly do it for their successors.
Windows or Apple ecosystems aren't good for building tech literacy, which will still be important in the foreseeable future.
Tell them they should do it for their kids and they will comply. It is also the truth that when people give away control, that they also implicitly do it for their successors.
Windows or Apple ecosystems aren't good for building tech literacy, which will still be important in the foreseeable future.
> Why would someone take steps to empower themselves if they see no need for such power?
Try telling someone, even a close friend, that you saw them doing something, while they did not expect to be seen by anyone.
I will give you $5 if they are not in the slightest bit annoyed by that.
Try telling someone, even a close friend, that you saw them doing something, while they did not expect to be seen by anyone.
I will give you $5 if they are not in the slightest bit annoyed by that.
Well, let's build something here.
The current article argues in its opening that "nobody cares" ... The immediate retort to any "nobody cares" statement -- before one even finishes the sentence -- is "then it's probably for a good reason." It's counter-productive and frames your argument from the "weak outsider" perspective.
So if we ought to frame our argument from a position of competence rather than insecurity (my original point) and assuming people care is incorrect (your point), what ought we say to help people protect themselves?
The current article argues in its opening that "nobody cares" ... The immediate retort to any "nobody cares" statement -- before one even finishes the sentence -- is "then it's probably for a good reason." It's counter-productive and frames your argument from the "weak outsider" perspective.
So if we ought to frame our argument from a position of competence rather than insecurity (my original point) and assuming people care is incorrect (your point), what ought we say to help people protect themselves?
If the subject comes up, I ask the question: "how to you think Facebook makes money?" I try to educate them on the business side of their social media: what does it look like when you start a Facebook ad-campaign? Select users by criteria, sometimes very complex and precise criteria. How do you feel about an advertiser selecting $subgroup-closely-resembling-partner-in-conversation?
I don't think I'm changing many minds, but I do try to offer a view most will never encounter themselves.
I don't think I'm changing many minds, but I do try to offer a view most will never encounter themselves.
This argument is the least likely to make me care about privacy (though in some cases it could work).
"Advertisers will be able to select you based on your history"... For what? For showing you an ad for the cool pants company that produces just the kind of pants you've always wanted? For an awesome, in-depth coding course? I'd rather get relevant ads than generic crap that I don't care about, even if it makes me spend more money.
"Advertisers will be able to select you based on your history"... For what? For showing you an ad for the cool pants company that produces just the kind of pants you've always wanted? For an awesome, in-depth coding course? I'd rather get relevant ads than generic crap that I don't care about, even if it makes me spend more money.
To use your profile to target you based on political ideology to influence your opinion in ways that can possibly be against your own interest and to polarize you against other people. Advertising on FB was and still is even with their newer protections used wayyy outside of selling you new pants.
But that's an even weaker rhetorical strategy. You're asking people to admit that they're susceptible to psychological manipulation. It's akin to asking them to admit "I'm weak and have no control over my beliefs". The people who are most vulnerable to that kind of manipulation are exactly the ones who are unlikely to respond well to this kind of rhetoric.
I'm responding the the question the op posed "For what?" and then proceeded to offer the most innocuous thing advertising does when there are far more well known malicious things happening every day.
I agree this won't convince people for the reason you've stated I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about the actual level of harm that happens.
I agree this won't convince people for the reason you've stated I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about the actual level of harm that happens.
I'm not in the group of people who would not accept I'm being manipulated. I believe that I'm constantly being manipulated by the media, anyway. If a ~100 character Facebook ad can change my political position, then maybe it is for the better?
Seeing the same message over and over and over and over has been proven to have an effect subconsciously.
I think you may not get much traction w/ "boo hoo, facebook is rich" or "oh no, facebook knows what i like".
I mentioned this earlier, but IMHO the best answer is one taken from Netflix's Social Dilemma:
"Facebook makes money by selling a guaranteed change behavior. Your behavior."
I mentioned this earlier, but IMHO the best answer is one taken from Netflix's Social Dilemma:
"Facebook makes money by selling a guaranteed change behavior. Your behavior."
[deleted]
I think as the "tech elite" it is more our job, as experts, to teach people. I got my parents to use a VPN because Netflix was hounding them when they would watch movies at their second house. I installed ad blockers (and at the same time privacy badger and HTTPS everywhere) in their browsers. We've talked a lot about surveillance capitalism and they've always quoted Goebbels (unknowingly). But after some time they now excitedly tell me about how wrong the ads are that they get in the mail or on their phones. The same thing has happened with several of my friends (many of whom I've gotten on Signal). The fact that they see wrong flyers in the mail has really also opened their eyes about how much they are tracked. Though I'll admit they're trending a little more towards the paranoid side now, but it is unsurprising when you consider Boomers grew up with Orwell, Huxley, and the Cold War (they also watch Fox).
It became clear to me that "I have nothing to hide" was actually "I don't think I can fight it." It was a justification for an apathetic view. Which I understand. If you try to fight a team of psychologists, mathematicians, and super computers, it seems like you have no chance. I think this same thing goes well beyond just privacy too. But most people need to consider that most people are not tech literate and it is a very daunting idea for them, one that they are pretty embarrassed about.
It became clear to me that "I have nothing to hide" was actually "I don't think I can fight it." It was a justification for an apathetic view. Which I understand. If you try to fight a team of psychologists, mathematicians, and super computers, it seems like you have no chance. I think this same thing goes well beyond just privacy too. But most people need to consider that most people are not tech literate and it is a very daunting idea for them, one that they are pretty embarrassed about.
[deleted]
> but this post should've been more focused on education from the get-go
Meanwhile many schools are rolling out Chromebooks and are happy about it.
Meanwhile many schools are rolling out Chromebooks and are happy about it.
Schools are doing that because they are cheap and easy. Funding in schools (at least in the US) is extremely difficult. If Google is going to subsidize your hardware and software in exchange for your habits I can see why schools are left with almost no choice.
I do teach at high school level and, in general, I am unimpressed by what the current generation of education tech brings to the table. Most of them do the same stuff as the tools available 15-20 years ago (Microsoft Office, Skype, Moodle), only more clumsily/slowly and with more dependencies.
If school administration were to save money using subsidized Chromebooks, they could save even more money by stubbornly remaining in the paper age. Teachers would be happier too, and students would at the very least be not worse off; I am even willing to say that they would be forced to learn analog skills that are desperately needed nowadays.
In short, I do not buy that it is lack of options that force schools to buy those products. It is the evil wizardry called "Marketing" that bewitch school administrators and prevent them to see the options in front of their noses.
If school administration were to save money using subsidized Chromebooks, they could save even more money by stubbornly remaining in the paper age. Teachers would be happier too, and students would at the very least be not worse off; I am even willing to say that they would be forced to learn analog skills that are desperately needed nowadays.
In short, I do not buy that it is lack of options that force schools to buy those products. It is the evil wizardry called "Marketing" that bewitch school administrators and prevent them to see the options in front of their noses.
This Social Cooling site is nonsense.
If you don't like the idea of someone maintaining a "digital reputation" based on your activity on platform X, don't use platform X. It's that simple.
Also: "We should compare this problem to Global Warming." Similarities? Social cooling is subtle and complex, just like global warming! Such insight.
If you don't like the idea of someone maintaining a "digital reputation" based on your activity on platform X, don't use platform X. It's that simple.
Also: "We should compare this problem to Global Warming." Similarities? Social cooling is subtle and complex, just like global warming! Such insight.
Even without a facebook login, facebook still tracks your actions on (virtually) every site you go to, due to facebook API tagging in websites. "Like this page", "Add a comment via the facebook api", "log in w/ facebook", etc. all call home. Even just loading the facebook "Like" images calls home, is logged, and tracks you.
That's client side. If you load 3rd party content into your browser or fail to block, that's on you. I thought usage of ublock origin/privacy badger could be implicitly assumed among the HN crowd.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Whenever somebody argues having nothing to hide I ask:
1) Where were you last night?
2) How much money is in your bank account? Do you have any debt?
3) What is your Debit Card PIN/account password/...
4) What is your address? Your families address?
5) Can I see your key?
And so on. Everybody needs to proctect themselves and potentially others attached to them. There is a good reason for these questions being awkward and inappropriate.
1) Where were you last night?
2) How much money is in your bank account? Do you have any debt?
3) What is your Debit Card PIN/account password/...
4) What is your address? Your families address?
5) Can I see your key?
And so on. Everybody needs to proctect themselves and potentially others attached to them. There is a good reason for these questions being awkward and inappropriate.
Posted this five months ago, but its still relevant: My nothing to hide argument;
Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? Surly you want to hide your children from abusers and predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves.. Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or your blood type from some rich mobsters with kidney problems..
we don't know who are any of these things. So we should protect ourselves from all of them, in effect we have everything to hide from someone, and no idea who someone is.
Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? Surly you want to hide your children from abusers and predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves.. Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or your blood type from some rich mobsters with kidney problems..
we don't know who are any of these things. So we should protect ourselves from all of them, in effect we have everything to hide from someone, and no idea who someone is.
I tend to go into a different direction: "Sure, you don't have anything to hide today. But what about tomorrow? Or next year?"
Did you know that law enforcement and justice can request and will try to gain access to data you share with any company?
"Oh, but I have done nothing wrong."
The definition of "nothing wrong" isn't set in stone. It's always up for interpretation. You might feel you're doing nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean authorities will always see it that way.
Remember, in some countries, authorities use your social media to monitor against tax fraud. [1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/11/11/tax...
There's always that probability of a change of political or judicial direction towards more invasive measures in your personal life using the data you share with third parties. You can't predict with certainty that in 10 years time you won't be earmarked as a "subversive element" as a result of mass data mining of the same data you happily share on line. Never assume "it won't happen to me."
Did you know that law enforcement and justice can request and will try to gain access to data you share with any company?
"Oh, but I have done nothing wrong."
The definition of "nothing wrong" isn't set in stone. It's always up for interpretation. You might feel you're doing nothing wrong, but that doesn't mean authorities will always see it that way.
Remember, in some countries, authorities use your social media to monitor against tax fraud. [1]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/11/11/tax...
There's always that probability of a change of political or judicial direction towards more invasive measures in your personal life using the data you share with third parties. You can't predict with certainty that in 10 years time you won't be earmarked as a "subversive element" as a result of mass data mining of the same data you happily share on line. Never assume "it won't happen to me."
The "But I've done nothing wrong" response always reminds me of this talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Exactly. You know inside that you have done nothing wrong, but nobody else knows that. They can only look at the available evidence and if they're talking to you it's because the evidence is spotty.
So, now you're gambling with whether or not the spotty evidence is spotty enough to make you look innocent or guilty. Therefore, everyone has something to hide because the whole truth will not always be evident and some partial truths can make you look guilty (ex. your cell phone location was very close to a murder scene. You didn't kill anyone, you walked by the spot a few minutes before it happened).
So, now you're gambling with whether or not the spotty evidence is spotty enough to make you look innocent or guilty. Therefore, everyone has something to hide because the whole truth will not always be evident and some partial truths can make you look guilty (ex. your cell phone location was very close to a murder scene. You didn't kill anyone, you walked by the spot a few minutes before it happened).
That SHOULD be a powerful argument, too. Unfortunately, most people tend to roll their eyes when you start suggesting that the government might use such powers against them in the future.
They ultimately just "trust the government" to do the "right thing" no matter how flawed that thinking is. This is partially the fault of the education system and them not "knowing their history" that well.
It's only when such abuses of privacy happen to them personally that they become ultra-privacy activists. We've seen this even with politicians that fought to expand mass surveillance powers and then did an 180 when they saw those powers were used against them, too (who would've thought?!).
They ultimately just "trust the government" to do the "right thing" no matter how flawed that thinking is. This is partially the fault of the education system and them not "knowing their history" that well.
It's only when such abuses of privacy happen to them personally that they become ultra-privacy activists. We've seen this even with politicians that fought to expand mass surveillance powers and then did an 180 when they saw those powers were used against them, too (who would've thought?!).
My personal philosophy is that no matter what mobile OS or search engine or email server or VPN subscription or whatever I use, if the federal government really wants to know something about me or my behavior, they will be able to find out.
Therefore, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to make all sorts of trade-offs in the name of privacy. There's not much to gain.
Therefore, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to make all sorts of trade-offs in the name of privacy. There's not much to gain.
> if the federal government really wants to know something about me or my behavior, they will be able to find out
If you've been specifically targeted by a state actor, you're going to have a much harder time than if your goal is to resist general dragnet surveillance.
> There's not much to gain.
This ignores whether you've been specifically targeted.
If you've been specifically targeted by a state actor, you're going to have a much harder time than if your goal is to resist general dragnet surveillance.
> There's not much to gain.
This ignores whether you've been specifically targeted.
If we had incontrovertible evidence of every abuse, every predation, every theft attempt via privileged information, misuse of identity information, every inappropriate property action, et cetera... Now include tools for reversing reversable illegal activities (if not identifying them before they are committed). Add real time knowledge of the location and status of all people. What effect would you expect this shift to have on the expected value of illegal behaviors? How long would such practices last? What if rapid response teams would immediately go into motion to end assaults and other risks to health and well-being?
There are great reasons we maintain privacy in our society's current configuration. A shift can sound like a perfect tool for authoritarians and many stories suggest that result but it might also be a perfect tool for exposing them early and suppressing their rise while facilitating greater safety and efficiency in society. We will certainly have to adjust our societal agreements and expectations.
There are great reasons we maintain privacy in our society's current configuration. A shift can sound like a perfect tool for authoritarians and many stories suggest that result but it might also be a perfect tool for exposing them early and suppressing their rise while facilitating greater safety and efficiency in society. We will certainly have to adjust our societal agreements and expectations.
Even a generally liberal western government would be tempted to extend this sort of monitoring towards "victimless crimes". Either to boost some arbitrary "effectiveness" numbers, or to boost profit from fines.
I think that a society that is too scared to break every little law or regulation even when it doesn't make sense would eventually tend to becoming conformist -and a stagnant, conformist society is worse than one with the rate of serious crimes that the traditional methods of enforcement leave.
I think that a society that is too scared to break every little law or regulation even when it doesn't make sense would eventually tend to becoming conformist -and a stagnant, conformist society is worse than one with the rate of serious crimes that the traditional methods of enforcement leave.
I have stopped arguing about it. I just cynically observe the people who keep insisting that they have nothing to hide, and then watch them suffer the consequences of their own decisions.
This approach is one of my biggest annoyances because it's not the same. You're asking for them to give you something but they're not getting anything in return. When people use Facebook/Google etc. they get a service that they end up valuing very highly in return. That common argument of "Give me your phone and PIN" is so pointless because people wouldn't even give that stuff to Facebook if it didn't give them anything back.
We've got to find a better set of arguments that we can use to convince people. I'm very strongly into privacy rights and I'm not convinced by this argument. Why would someone who doesn't care be convinced?
We've got to find a better set of arguments that we can use to convince people. I'm very strongly into privacy rights and I'm not convinced by this argument. Why would someone who doesn't care be convinced?
- Post pictures naked ?
- You close the door of the toilets. You do have something to hide (we all know what you're doing. you're hiding anyway)
"I don't need privacy because my actions are questionable, but because your judgment is" (think dictatures, wrong guys at the top of the decision pyramid, 2nd world war ..)
- You close the door of the toilets. You do have something to hide (we all know what you're doing. you're hiding anyway)
"I don't need privacy because my actions are questionable, but because your judgment is" (think dictatures, wrong guys at the top of the decision pyramid, 2nd world war ..)
Just change the hypothetical into: "Would you give me your home address and keys so I can drop off a newspaper on your coffee table each morning?" Yes, it's a bit long, but it takes into account your concern of giving data and not receiving anything in return. And Facebook/Insta/Social media in general is very similar to having a newspaper available at your coffee table each day.
Given that plenty of people give their home address and keys to a cleaner (domestic maid service), I really don't think that argument is going to get you anywhere.
> "Would you give me your home address and keys so I can drop off a newspaper on your coffee table each morning?"
... Oh. And BTW. I'll be making some copies of your keys to give to a bunch of others interested in placing adds on your coffee table (or so they claim). I'll also go through all your drawers to see if I can't find any other keys/access cards/... to gain access to your office or your colleages' offices, friends' or family's homes, etc. just so I can provide them with the same adds "service" as I intend to provide you. Of course I don't remind you of any of this. Nor do I tell your colleagues, friends, family, etc. After all. What you don't know will aid me and what they don't know will aid me. ;-)
... Oh. And BTW. I'll be making some copies of your keys to give to a bunch of others interested in placing adds on your coffee table (or so they claim). I'll also go through all your drawers to see if I can't find any other keys/access cards/... to gain access to your office or your colleages' offices, friends' or family's homes, etc. just so I can provide them with the same adds "service" as I intend to provide you. Of course I don't remind you of any of this. Nor do I tell your colleagues, friends, family, etc. After all. What you don't know will aid me and what they don't know will aid me. ;-)
That is much closer to the digital reality, thanks for expanding on the idea like this.
> "Would you give me your home address and keys so I can drop off a newspaper on your coffee table each morning?"
If we're entering a valid contract under the justice system of our country of residency, why not? Similar services already abound, in particular around people who contract to visit and attend to older citizens.
If we're entering a valid contract under the justice system of our country of residency, why not? Similar services already abound, in particular around people who contract to visit and attend to older citizens.
This is a valid argument, which leads me to the thought that the laws need to be updated. I personally wouldn't be okay with my own premise. I have a person coming over to clean, but I am always home and I can check if I am worried about something.
If that's not too intrusive a question, I would be curious to know about your fears regarding such situation? Many people would consider this a benign thing - after all residential cleaning services is a multi-dozen billion market worldwide, growing at 5+% YoY, and a non-trivial part of that necessarily involves letting cleaners clean without owners' supervision.
Then again I'm asking as a European citizen living in a country with a comprehensive legal system, a functioning police force, cheap insurance policies, so on so forth. Certainly that ecosystem plays a role in our inner fears.
Then again I'm asking as a European citizen living in a country with a comprehensive legal system, a functioning police force, cheap insurance policies, so on so forth. Certainly that ecosystem plays a role in our inner fears.
yea its a shame its used so much. i even seen it being used by someone on TED talk :/
im not going to get into any of the better arguments right now but one thing i like to ask when people say they have nothing to hide is "what kind of things are people looking for?"
I think its good to get a handle on what the person knows first before you start throwing out counter arguments. in a lot of cases people don't even know whether they have something to hide or not and are just repeating what they have heard others saying
im not going to get into any of the better arguments right now but one thing i like to ask when people say they have nothing to hide is "what kind of things are people looking for?"
I think its good to get a handle on what the person knows first before you start throwing out counter arguments. in a lot of cases people don't even know whether they have something to hide or not and are just repeating what they have heard others saying
If they don’t care, ask for their password.
What is more insidious is that by itself some small portions of information are not private. But collectively they are.
Some portions of information seem innocent too like 'how much is in your account' could mean the difference between if someone tries to target me or not. Say I owe 500 bucks and have 10 in the bank and they may not bother. But say something like I have no debt and have a million in the bank and suddenly I am a very attractive target. That is for both 'good' and 'bad' actors.
Something as simple as giving your email to someone can tie you into yet another ad network. Which has already profiled you.
What is the worst of it is, I really do not care if you had the information. I do care if you use my information to mess up my life or harass me endlessly. So my default position is 'sorry I am not telling you that'.
Some portions of information seem innocent too like 'how much is in your account' could mean the difference between if someone tries to target me or not. Say I owe 500 bucks and have 10 in the bank and they may not bother. But say something like I have no debt and have a million in the bank and suddenly I am a very attractive target. That is for both 'good' and 'bad' actors.
Something as simple as giving your email to someone can tie you into yet another ad network. Which has already profiled you.
What is the worst of it is, I really do not care if you had the information. I do care if you use my information to mess up my life or harass me endlessly. So my default position is 'sorry I am not telling you that'.
Most people understand that there is a distinction between having nothing to hide from randos on the Internet asking about my life and having nothing to hide from the legal system of my country. Your line of questioning is not an argument for most people.
These randos on the internet are people. And who works in government and/or the justice system? You guessed it! People!
The govermnent is not some sort of abstract infallible entity. It consists of regular people. And giving those people deep access to your private and personal life is going to be abused more than it will help.
Have we already forgotten what disastrous consequences moving toward such a totalitarian government has? Have we already forgotten about the horrors of the second world war and its aftermath?
The govermnent is not some sort of abstract infallible entity. It consists of regular people. And giving those people deep access to your private and personal life is going to be abused more than it will help.
Have we already forgotten what disastrous consequences moving toward such a totalitarian government has? Have we already forgotten about the horrors of the second world war and its aftermath?
> These randos on the internet are people. And who works in government and/or the justice system? You guessed it! People!
That is not a persuasive argument to anyone who understands that people working for governments/justice systems are much more keen to be bound by... laws... than randos on the Internet.
> Giving those people deep access to your private and personal life is going to be abused more than it will help.
Yeah, I'll need a pretty convincing citation about that because it sounds like a load of misinformed nonsense to me. At the very least, you ought to segment your argument based on regional zones. As an example, in the EU governments do collect quite a lot of deep information on their citizens (their finance, their health, their skillsets, etc). They can then use that information to give out unemployment insurance, support education, tackle the best part of healthcare costs and so many other things that have a truly positive effect on people.
> Have we already forgotten what disastrous consequences moving toward such a totalitarian government has? Have we already forgotten about the horrors of the second world war and its aftermath?
Wait, is your argument that citizens in the US, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc. will experience a shift of their government to totalitarian states in their lifetime? If so what are you basing this belief on?
That is not a persuasive argument to anyone who understands that people working for governments/justice systems are much more keen to be bound by... laws... than randos on the Internet.
> Giving those people deep access to your private and personal life is going to be abused more than it will help.
Yeah, I'll need a pretty convincing citation about that because it sounds like a load of misinformed nonsense to me. At the very least, you ought to segment your argument based on regional zones. As an example, in the EU governments do collect quite a lot of deep information on their citizens (their finance, their health, their skillsets, etc). They can then use that information to give out unemployment insurance, support education, tackle the best part of healthcare costs and so many other things that have a truly positive effect on people.
> Have we already forgotten what disastrous consequences moving toward such a totalitarian government has? Have we already forgotten about the horrors of the second world war and its aftermath?
Wait, is your argument that citizens in the US, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc. will experience a shift of their government to totalitarian states in their lifetime? If so what are you basing this belief on?
Whether your argument is correct or not doesn't change the fact that it's not an argument worth making to most people. Rather than try to get them to begrudgingly accept that your original argument is a worthy one, it's a better use of energy to just find the argument that works the first time.
> The govermnent is not some sort of abstract infallible entity.
Most people agree it's not infallible, but a lot of people view it as an abstract entity and not just a group of different people.
> The govermnent is not some sort of abstract infallible entity.
Most people agree it's not infallible, but a lot of people view it as an abstract entity and not just a group of different people.
You could argue that there are some obvious things that should be kept secret, but not what can be tracked on the internet etc for purposes of providing you better recommendations or improving your life in general.
That being said I'm a very private person and I wouldn't want to give out any data, but just playing a devil's advocate here.
That being said I'm a very private person and I wouldn't want to give out any data, but just playing a devil's advocate here.
I hear you and understand where you are coming from. This is the reason many websites use cookies and many of these cookies may be functional in that sense.
However a grey line starts to emerge when companies use the argument “tracking to make better recommendations and improve your life in general”. This may be innocuous on the company’s part, eg “we just want to make a better recommendation out of the hundreds, maybe thousands or millions of products we have”. And yes it may improve my life in so far as consumer satisfaction is able to momentarily or even permanently do so.
However there is a weight of responsibility here, which other comments also refer to, and this that in totality the privacy cost may actually be so invasive and so easy to aggregate in the wrong hands, and so difficult for individuals to have control of, that “make better recommendations and improve [consumer] life in general” becomes hard to justify.
However a grey line starts to emerge when companies use the argument “tracking to make better recommendations and improve your life in general”. This may be innocuous on the company’s part, eg “we just want to make a better recommendation out of the hundreds, maybe thousands or millions of products we have”. And yes it may improve my life in so far as consumer satisfaction is able to momentarily or even permanently do so.
However there is a weight of responsibility here, which other comments also refer to, and this that in totality the privacy cost may actually be so invasive and so easy to aggregate in the wrong hands, and so difficult for individuals to have control of, that “make better recommendations and improve [consumer] life in general” becomes hard to justify.
Instead of those questions, just ask them if they have blinds or curtains on their windows at home.
It's better to show that they already take steps to be private rather than asking privacy-invasive questions. One of those makes you the bad guy, the other shows that they actually do value privacy.
It's better to show that they already take steps to be private rather than asking privacy-invasive questions. One of those makes you the bad guy, the other shows that they actually do value privacy.
Or the more direct, "Do you shit with the door open?"
This is the most succinct expression I've ever seen of the only counterargument you need.
We don't have curtains, actually. We have some pull-down blinds that are almost always in the up position. And I have to be honest: I only care about walking in front of my windows naked to the extent that it would bother my neighbors. I couldn't care any less. I only ever pull them down to spare my neighbors any embarrassment.
Which is just to say: a lot of privacy talk is mere question-begging. It's assumed we all feel the same privacy-based emotions (and pro-privacy arguments like yours attempt to appeal to those emotions), but I find that I rarely share my interlocutor's intuitions on this topic, so your argument is still ahead of you.
Which is just to say: a lot of privacy talk is mere question-begging. It's assumed we all feel the same privacy-based emotions (and pro-privacy arguments like yours attempt to appeal to those emotions), but I find that I rarely share my interlocutor's intuitions on this topic, so your argument is still ahead of you.
Yeah I have blinds. But not because I am paranoid of peeping toms but because I like to sleep without the sun in my eyes.
I don't really think that argument holds any water though
people are ok with giving away some of their privacy because they believe that companies and governments are trustworthy and that they will not abuse it.
asking them to give you their password isn't the same thing. you are not an "official" person that is bound by any company rules or laws and you could easily spend the rest of the day/week/month going through their emails wreaking havoc if you really wanted to. if a government official or police officer had access to their credit card number there is much less of a chance of them abusing it compared to someone they know or some stranger in the street.
even people that are aware of their data being collected probably know that there isnt someone in a van or an office cubical reading through every email they send/receive. its all just bulk collection and someone only looks at it if you get flagged for some reason.
people are ok with giving away some of their privacy because they believe that companies and governments are trustworthy and that they will not abuse it.
asking them to give you their password isn't the same thing. you are not an "official" person that is bound by any company rules or laws and you could easily spend the rest of the day/week/month going through their emails wreaking havoc if you really wanted to. if a government official or police officer had access to their credit card number there is much less of a chance of them abusing it compared to someone they know or some stranger in the street.
even people that are aware of their data being collected probably know that there isnt someone in a van or an office cubical reading through every email they send/receive. its all just bulk collection and someone only looks at it if you get flagged for some reason.
As seen in a recent comment here, you might add:
6) Let the toilets door open, after all we all know what you're going to do there.
6) Let the toilets door open, after all we all know what you're going to do there.
I like to counter the "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide" argument with...
"If I have done nothing wrong, then no one has the need to take an interest in my personal affairs."
"If I have done nothing wrong, then no one has the need to take an interest in my personal affairs."
This doesn't strike me as a very compelling response.
If someone is arguing for dragnet surveillance with the idea that it only really impacts the guilty, and you respond by pointing out that you're innocent so there's nothing to gain by surveilling you, you haven't refuted their position at all.
edit I see we're retreading an exchange (between others) from a few months back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23709602
If someone is arguing for dragnet surveillance with the idea that it only really impacts the guilty, and you respond by pointing out that you're innocent so there's nothing to gain by surveilling you, you haven't refuted their position at all.
edit I see we're retreading an exchange (between others) from a few months back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23709602
But if someone is Okay with a dragnet approach to find criminals, it also means that they are Okay with the government knowing every little detail of their life.
And I would assume most people have things they would rather other people or government not know about.
Everyone has secrets they want to keep.
And I would assume most people have things they would rather other people or government not know about.
Everyone has secrets they want to keep.
[deleted]
Sarcasm ahead
But we don't know that you have done nothing wrong. Why don't we just take a quick peek and we'll leave you alone until we randomly decide to do this pointless exercise again?
But we don't know that you have done nothing wrong. Why don't we just take a quick peek and we'll leave you alone until we randomly decide to do this pointless exercise again?
I don't mind people seeing me eating a meal in a restaurant. I'd have a problem if someone pulled up a chair and started staring at me. You can't use intensive actions to show how minor ones are objectionable.
And further, as a rule of thumb if someone is dealing in hypotheticals it means they don't have actual proof of harm. You'd never make an argument like this if you could point to Bob Jones and say "X happened to Bob Jones and it could happen to you."
And further, as a rule of thumb if someone is dealing in hypotheticals it means they don't have actual proof of harm. You'd never make an argument like this if you could point to Bob Jones and say "X happened to Bob Jones and it could happen to you."
The claim "I have nothing to hide so I don't care," is actually the claim that privacy is not intrinsically valuable.
I think you can absolutely use an intensive action to show that lesser ones are objectionable.
"If privacy is not important in itself, why are you covering your body with underwear and pants? Why don't you put cameras throughout your house, including your bedroom?"
Clearly our actions reveal that we DO think privacy is important in itself. What "I have nothing to hide" really means is "I have not yet been personally affected, so I don't care." It's apathy, not a value statement.
I think you can absolutely use an intensive action to show that lesser ones are objectionable.
"If privacy is not important in itself, why are you covering your body with underwear and pants? Why don't you put cameras throughout your house, including your bedroom?"
Clearly our actions reveal that we DO think privacy is important in itself. What "I have nothing to hide" really means is "I have not yet been personally affected, so I don't care." It's apathy, not a value statement.
Reminds of me a child getting super close and saying “I’m not touching you.” They could touch you if they wanted or may touch you by mistake which makes it frustrating, it’s a kind of power. I think we need to understand with private knowledge comes power. We can’t trust normal people we don’t know with that power. People who are just working a job. Hell even most people don’t trust the opposite political parties president with power let alone corporations. To limit that we have to move them away and not even give them the chance to abuse it.
[deleted]
Right. And one notices that such people already implicitly value privacy since they talk to their husband or wife or close friend very differently depending upon whether others are present.
Well, I tried using this exact argument on someone, and their reply was "I'm happy to provide all of these, and more, to any law enforcement agency that needs it. I'm not worried about government abusing this, and I don't understand why you do. I'm also not worried about stealing this information, because it simply won't happen to me".
There's no point in arguing with some people. The logic just doesn't work.
There's no point in arguing with some people. The logic just doesn't work.
This is an important phenomenon that I think is really tricky to tackle. Because, I think your observation is 100% true. But, it also comes off as rude.
But it really is probably the case that most people making general statements to the effect of "I've got nothing to hide" don't actually believe what they are saying, or they haven't fully worked out the implications.
But it really is probably the case that most people making general statements to the effect of "I've got nothing to hide" don't actually believe what they are saying, or they haven't fully worked out the implications.
The creepy stuff is when bits of such "knowledge" are taken out of context and used to compile a personal profile of you, for purposes from marketing to content recommendation to social and political engineering. Someone has those partial "facts", but are unable to extract your true motivation for your behaviours and can draw very wrong conclusions.
Exactly. Anyone who says they have nothing to hide, I ask them for their unlocked mobile.
[deleted]
Not really a fair set of questions, since at least (3), (4), and (5) can potentially lead to others accessing/taking my stuff (bank accounts, home, etc.) rather than just knowing about me.
Usually when people tell me that line, I ask - can I see the browsing history on your phone? Usually, it gets the point across.
“can you tell me your email password? I wanna check something in your emails..."
[deleted]
in addition "lets go over to your place i want to have a look around"
you hit the nail on the head.
They are absolutely correct, as was a commenter that explicitly described what "privacy" means.
The issue is that corporations, like Facebook, have some very sweet "desserts" to entice people to abrogate their privacy. Alternatives have always given great privacy (spinach), but little in the way of a replacement for the "candies" that Facebook offers.
Facebook is incredibly valuable, and can afford to hire vast armies of engineers and psychologists, all dedicated to getting their "product" (that's users) to make themselves more "productive." Think farmers, giving hogs higher-protein, better-tasting food.
Until alternatives can provide a better "dessert" experience, and only offer spinach, then the vast majority of users won't come to them.
The issue is that corporations, like Facebook, have some very sweet "desserts" to entice people to abrogate their privacy. Alternatives have always given great privacy (spinach), but little in the way of a replacement for the "candies" that Facebook offers.
Facebook is incredibly valuable, and can afford to hire vast armies of engineers and psychologists, all dedicated to getting their "product" (that's users) to make themselves more "productive." Think farmers, giving hogs higher-protein, better-tasting food.
Until alternatives can provide a better "dessert" experience, and only offer spinach, then the vast majority of users won't come to them.
I've started to ask "What about others? Don't they have the right to privacy?".
For example if you're gay you might not want everyone to find out. Or if you're into some weird kinky stuff. Or even better if you live with a hidden identity because you've witnessed against organized crime.
It's fine to give away your personal privacy, but it's harder to throw other people under the buss (if you're capable of empathy as most of us are).
For example if you're gay you might not want everyone to find out. Or if you're into some weird kinky stuff. Or even better if you live with a hidden identity because you've witnessed against organized crime.
It's fine to give away your personal privacy, but it's harder to throw other people under the buss (if you're capable of empathy as most of us are).
And the more of us who don't feel the explicit need for privacy who are willing to speak up for those we know who do need it, the better
The point is that the majority of people live boring lives and don't have enough wealth to be a valuable target. I certainly fall into this category. I'm not important or interesting enough that anyone is going to look into me.
It's possible that one day I'll become very important and then I'll wish that I had kept various embarrassing things from getting out. It's also possible that I'll become a billionaire. Neither outcome seems likely enough for me to change my daily behavior.
People are generally not willing to endure even the slightest inconvenience for the sake of a philosophical concept like privacy. I've seen people make big changes in response to widespread negative outcomes (ie, coronavirus), but I couldn't imagine a similar response to an intangible issue like potential privacy violations.
People are generally not willing to endure even the slightest inconvenience for the sake of a philosophical concept like privacy. I've seen people make big changes in response to widespread negative outcomes (ie, coronavirus), but I couldn't imagine a similar response to an intangible issue like potential privacy violations.
the point of making a philosophical argument about it is to avoid the inevitable practical problems posed. We're there already, too. Adtech data has been bought by the Pentagon for use in targeting individuals overseas for military operations. This is quite literally not a drill.
Whether or not you believe you have nothing to hide is immaterial, too; there are some people in the world who might disagree with you (for religious, political, or moral causes) and they could potentially be very interested in your data. Do you think the people who worked at the world trade center felt they had anything to hide? how about the folks at the Olympics in Munich? Hell, I bet the people we (US) drone strike don't feel like they have anything to hide; after all, they're the good guys, and those invading Americans are the aggressors.
This is far more complex than "I'm not valuable". Perhaps, philosophically, if you lived a perfectly saintly life and never made any enemies or had an opinion that upset anybody ever, you could say you had nothing to hide.
Whether or not you believe you have nothing to hide is immaterial, too; there are some people in the world who might disagree with you (for religious, political, or moral causes) and they could potentially be very interested in your data. Do you think the people who worked at the world trade center felt they had anything to hide? how about the folks at the Olympics in Munich? Hell, I bet the people we (US) drone strike don't feel like they have anything to hide; after all, they're the good guys, and those invading Americans are the aggressors.
This is far more complex than "I'm not valuable". Perhaps, philosophically, if you lived a perfectly saintly life and never made any enemies or had an opinion that upset anybody ever, you could say you had nothing to hide.
It also works in reverse. I argue many politicians are being controlled, mostly unconsciously, or with gentle hints.
> The overwhelming majority of people do not care about privacy. They ask why they should care if they have “nothing to hide”
I have never heard anyone say this though it's a common internet strawman. Certainly there are people who don't care much about their browser cookies or the information they share on Facebook, but it doesn't mean they have 'nothing to hide'. They just disagree on what they need to keep private.
I can't say I worry about cookies at work where I'm only browsing tech sites.
I have never heard anyone say this though it's a common internet strawman. Certainly there are people who don't care much about their browser cookies or the information they share on Facebook, but it doesn't mean they have 'nothing to hide'. They just disagree on what they need to keep private.
I can't say I worry about cookies at work where I'm only browsing tech sites.
A rather perfunctory post in my opinion, it doesn't offer much insight into how we should think about privacy.
If you don't mind a heavy-going read, I recommend these papers by Solove: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy [0], Conceptualizing Privacy [1], A Taxonomy of Privacy [2].
See also this HackerNews discussion on the nothing to hide argument from a few months back. [3]
[0] https://ssrn.com/abstract=998565
[1] https://ssrn.com/abstract=313103
[2] https://ssrn.com/abstract=667622
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23707411
If you don't mind a heavy-going read, I recommend these papers by Solove: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy [0], Conceptualizing Privacy [1], A Taxonomy of Privacy [2].
See also this HackerNews discussion on the nothing to hide argument from a few months back. [3]
[0] https://ssrn.com/abstract=998565
[1] https://ssrn.com/abstract=313103
[2] https://ssrn.com/abstract=667622
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23707411
Sorry if the post comes off as perfunctory, my last post on the topic had the opposite affect [1], so I tried to tone it down a little.
Also, as the author, I whole-heartedly recommend reading the aformentioned papers.
[1] https://lobste.rs/s/mrlfwh/why_privacy_matters_even_if_you_h...
Also, as the author, I whole-heartedly recommend reading the aformentioned papers.
[1] https://lobste.rs/s/mrlfwh/why_privacy_matters_even_if_you_h...
That page links to [0] which is a broken link, is it no longer available?
[0] https://write.privacytools.io/privacy-simplified/why-privacy...
[0] https://write.privacytools.io/privacy-simplified/why-privacy...
Ahh, yes that link is broken. Here is an archived version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191224125253/https://write.pri...
https://web.archive.org/web/20191224125253/https://write.pri...
There are some good points made there, but I found some of the points to be weak. Some hopefully constructive criticism:
> Why would you not care about one of your human rights?
That's essentially an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority argument. You haven't shown why I should care about privacy, you've only stated that the current consensus is that privacy counts as what we call a human right.
> it's not that I have nothing to hide, I simply don't have anything I would like to share, especially unknowingly.
Not really. I have plenty to hide, but that doesn't mean I've done anything wrong. I wouldn't agree to a camera in the bathroom, despite that I don't use the room to commit crimes. It's not that I merely don't care to have a camera, I would consider it a violation for there to be one.
> Why would you not care about one of your human rights?
That's essentially an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority argument. You haven't shown why I should care about privacy, you've only stated that the current consensus is that privacy counts as what we call a human right.
> it's not that I have nothing to hide, I simply don't have anything I would like to share, especially unknowingly.
Not really. I have plenty to hide, but that doesn't mean I've done anything wrong. I wouldn't agree to a camera in the bathroom, despite that I don't use the room to commit crimes. It's not that I merely don't care to have a camera, I would consider it a violation for there to be one.
I agree with your first point, and hopefully you can see the changes in the current article. As for the second one, see a comment on the HN thread for the article [0]:
> It is unlikely that you truly have nothing to hide, but it is even more unlikely that every single person who has any influence over your life has nothing to hide. Protecting their privacy prevents exploitation that could hurt you too.
I probably should have used it in this article....
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21923548
> It is unlikely that you truly have nothing to hide, but it is even more unlikely that every single person who has any influence over your life has nothing to hide. Protecting their privacy prevents exploitation that could hurt you too.
I probably should have used it in this article....
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21923548
A better way to get the point across with people who claim "they have nothing to hide" is to ask them "do you want to give away your ability to hide something". Everyone's future is uncertain, and even the most transparent of people among us may come into circumstances where they would want some information to remain private. If you give away your privacy you don't just give it away today, it's gone forever.
My respect for privacy went up when I went through my first litigation. I then saw a few other people go through litigation, and learned more about the legal system.
It turned out that when people are trying to cast doubt on you, frame you, or otherwise are in a fight with you, knowledge IS power.
There's a misconception that you need to do something wrong to be punished:
* In a civil suit, a judge determines who is more likely to be right, and that can be based on gut feelings, circumstantial evidence, or fabricated stuff.
* Criminal law suits have a higher bar, but at the end of the day, the policeman and prosecutor get evaluated based on whether they threw someone in jail, not whether they threw the right person in jail. To do that, they need to convince a jury.
* Even if you're not throw in jail, a 2-year criminal investigation which costs you $200k in legal fees and eats up all of your mental cycles can leave you financially and emotionally debilitated. All that takes is some government employee having enough to be convinced there's something worth investigating.
* Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. Our legal code is long enough we ALL break laws we don't know about. If a prosecutor or policeman believe you deserve to be in prison, they'll work really hard to do that.
An email where you misphrase yourself, a record of where you were on some date, or otherwise can all come back to haunt you, even when you've done nothing wrong. It's better to keep that stuff private.
Disclaimer: I've never personally been through a criminal investigation or prosecution. I've been through a couple civil cases. I was threatened with a criminal prosecution once unless I ceded ground in a business transaction. I didn't do what the other party threatened to accuse me of (and they knew it), but:
1. Evidence was enough messy evidence that I think they could have gotten a criminal investigation going.
2. Threatening criminal prosecution as leverage is extortion. I didn't know how far the other party would go. Would they fabricate evidence?
I spoke to a very good lawyer. Their opinion was that this would never make it to court -- even with if the other party faked evidence -- but that the time and cost of handling a criminal investigation would far outweigh any upsides. They advised me to fold. I folded. In retrospect, I'm glad I did.
It turned out that when people are trying to cast doubt on you, frame you, or otherwise are in a fight with you, knowledge IS power.
There's a misconception that you need to do something wrong to be punished:
* In a civil suit, a judge determines who is more likely to be right, and that can be based on gut feelings, circumstantial evidence, or fabricated stuff.
* Criminal law suits have a higher bar, but at the end of the day, the policeman and prosecutor get evaluated based on whether they threw someone in jail, not whether they threw the right person in jail. To do that, they need to convince a jury.
* Even if you're not throw in jail, a 2-year criminal investigation which costs you $200k in legal fees and eats up all of your mental cycles can leave you financially and emotionally debilitated. All that takes is some government employee having enough to be convinced there's something worth investigating.
* Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. Our legal code is long enough we ALL break laws we don't know about. If a prosecutor or policeman believe you deserve to be in prison, they'll work really hard to do that.
An email where you misphrase yourself, a record of where you were on some date, or otherwise can all come back to haunt you, even when you've done nothing wrong. It's better to keep that stuff private.
Disclaimer: I've never personally been through a criminal investigation or prosecution. I've been through a couple civil cases. I was threatened with a criminal prosecution once unless I ceded ground in a business transaction. I didn't do what the other party threatened to accuse me of (and they knew it), but:
1. Evidence was enough messy evidence that I think they could have gotten a criminal investigation going.
2. Threatening criminal prosecution as leverage is extortion. I didn't know how far the other party would go. Would they fabricate evidence?
I spoke to a very good lawyer. Their opinion was that this would never make it to court -- even with if the other party faked evidence -- but that the time and cost of handling a criminal investigation would far outweigh any upsides. They advised me to fold. I folded. In retrospect, I'm glad I did.
(from FabioAEsteves). "Don't confuse privacy with secrecy. I know what you do in the bathroom, but you still close the door."
No. You, as a point of fact, don't know what I'm doing in the bathroom.
* I might be picking a big booger with my pointer finger.
* I might be cleaning my butt in ways which are offensive in your culture, whether using my right hand in the India, without TP in the US, or in a hundred other ways.
* I might be managing a really nasty fungal growth somewhere you can't see.
* I might be pleasing myself.
* I might not be washing my hands after I pee.
* I might be inspecting a polyp for cancer.
* I might be writing "For a good time, call" graffiti, leaving the phone number of your mother/sister/daughter/wife.
* I might be dealing with my period.
... and so on.
* I might be picking a big booger with my pointer finger.
* I might be cleaning my butt in ways which are offensive in your culture, whether using my right hand in the India, without TP in the US, or in a hundred other ways.
* I might be managing a really nasty fungal growth somewhere you can't see.
* I might be pleasing myself.
* I might not be washing my hands after I pee.
* I might be inspecting a polyp for cancer.
* I might be writing "For a good time, call" graffiti, leaving the phone number of your mother/sister/daughter/wife.
* I might be dealing with my period.
... and so on.
It was a good counter-point at "No". But since you went on, I now know again.
But jokes aside, the quote is direct anti-symbolism to the "But I have nothing to hide" and found it pretty effective, even in its silly nature, when arguing with people who are too eager to give up all privacy.
But jokes aside, the quote is direct anti-symbolism to the "But I have nothing to hide" and found it pretty effective, even in its silly nature, when arguing with people who are too eager to give up all privacy.
I think your analogy makes the wrong point. There are many reasons you might have something to hide, and to start with the simplistic ones your friends are presenting, among them is:
1. You did something wrong.
2. Someone else wants to do something wrong to you.
The first is in your control. I think I've acted with sufficient integrity for my life that I have nothing to hide which might land me in trouble.
The second is out of your control. There are unreasonable people in this world. If you have a stalker, you don't want them to know where you are. If your spouse cheats on you and leaves you, you might have a custody battle on the line. If your government goes the way of Germany or Russia circa 1940, you might want to hide your ethnicity or political beliefs. A police officer is investigating a crime, when someone you didn't like was killed; you didn't do it, but time, place, and motive are all there. None of these are particularly likely, but they do come up.
I have one person in my life, and to protect myself from them, I have a limited online presence. I use fake names, and my LinkedIn stopped updating a few years back which limits career prospects, but it's a sacrifice worth making. I let out a lot of information before that, which was a mistake. I went through some legal disagreements at one point, where another party acted unethically and decided to extort me. These things aren't in your control.
When I was young, I had nothing to hide. When I was older, I learned information is power, and information asymmetry can help you or hurt you. With that wisdom, I now have a lot to hide, and I advise younger folks to be mindful of their privacy.
I intentionally listed a lot of different things in my post, with fault lying in different places or nowhere at all, to give an idea of the variety of reasons one might want to hide something.
1. You did something wrong.
2. Someone else wants to do something wrong to you.
The first is in your control. I think I've acted with sufficient integrity for my life that I have nothing to hide which might land me in trouble.
The second is out of your control. There are unreasonable people in this world. If you have a stalker, you don't want them to know where you are. If your spouse cheats on you and leaves you, you might have a custody battle on the line. If your government goes the way of Germany or Russia circa 1940, you might want to hide your ethnicity or political beliefs. A police officer is investigating a crime, when someone you didn't like was killed; you didn't do it, but time, place, and motive are all there. None of these are particularly likely, but they do come up.
I have one person in my life, and to protect myself from them, I have a limited online presence. I use fake names, and my LinkedIn stopped updating a few years back which limits career prospects, but it's a sacrifice worth making. I let out a lot of information before that, which was a mistake. I went through some legal disagreements at one point, where another party acted unethically and decided to extort me. These things aren't in your control.
When I was young, I had nothing to hide. When I was older, I learned information is power, and information asymmetry can help you or hurt you. With that wisdom, I now have a lot to hide, and I advise younger folks to be mindful of their privacy.
I intentionally listed a lot of different things in my post, with fault lying in different places or nowhere at all, to give an idea of the variety of reasons one might want to hide something.
Not sure if it's the same though. It doesn't work for me.
Why do we like to defecate in privacy? What is the evolutionary reason? Animals do this too. Dogs only get to business when you give them some privacy and they like to get in the bushes if they can. I would assume it's an instinctive drive to get away from the community, to go somewhere with little social activity, so we don't make our living spaces dirty and infectious with our feces.
I don't think this is the same kind of thing as trying to keep one's political opinions or salary private.
Why do we like to defecate in privacy? What is the evolutionary reason? Animals do this too. Dogs only get to business when you give them some privacy and they like to get in the bushes if they can. I would assume it's an instinctive drive to get away from the community, to go somewhere with little social activity, so we don't make our living spaces dirty and infectious with our feces.
I don't think this is the same kind of thing as trying to keep one's political opinions or salary private.
> I don't think this is the same kind of thing as trying to keep one's political opinions or salary private.
Not only that, but the community isn't better served by someone shitting in public. You can make the argument that if everyone's salary was public information the community as a whole would be better off. Yet we still have people at all points on the income spectrum hiding their salary for various reasons.
Not only that, but the community isn't better served by someone shitting in public. You can make the argument that if everyone's salary was public information the community as a whole would be better off. Yet we still have people at all points on the income spectrum hiding their salary for various reasons.
> Niemals do this too
You probably misspelt "Animals", but "niemals" is German for "never" or "no way". Gave me a chuckle in context.
On topic: there's probably more to it in humans, because animals don't have cultural phenomena like shame about their sexual organs, making embarrassing noises or smelling bad.
I would say the parallel with defecating in private is valid, as it can lead to the same perceived loss of social status as "not earning enough" or "having an unacceptable opinion".
You probably misspelt "Animals", but "niemals" is German for "never" or "no way". Gave me a chuckle in context.
On topic: there's probably more to it in humans, because animals don't have cultural phenomena like shame about their sexual organs, making embarrassing noises or smelling bad.
I would say the parallel with defecating in private is valid, as it can lead to the same perceived loss of social status as "not earning enough" or "having an unacceptable opinion".
But why are those noises and smells embarrassing? It's not an arbitrary cultural construct but has roots in the behavioral immune system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_immune_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_immune_system
Some people hear this and it doesn't click but for me this phrasing of the point articulated a sense of unease of over the idea that "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide."
One of the most effective pieces of media I’ve seen in favor of privacy is Surveillance Camera Man [1]. While I don’t support what the guy behind the camera is doing, the videos he has evoke a stronger reaction than any logical argument I’ve heard against “having nothing to hide.”
[1]: https://youtu.be/mP5ZVPwP7bg
[1]: https://youtu.be/mP5ZVPwP7bg
I guess what sets people off was that he was being super in-your-face and creepy.
I did street photography for a while and a lot of it was about approaching people nicely and asking, or surreptitiously taking photos. I try to observe photography laws and made sure any photos of private buildings were taken from a public street, although I did get asked by the security guard at a mall to please move to the public sidewalk one time when I walked onto a parking lot to get the shot I wanted.
As I understand the laws in California at the time, photos taken from public property do not need releases from the property owners nor from people unless you intend to use the photos commercially, although I did not explicitly research the laws myself.
I did street photography for a while and a lot of it was about approaching people nicely and asking, or surreptitiously taking photos. I try to observe photography laws and made sure any photos of private buildings were taken from a public street, although I did get asked by the security guard at a mall to please move to the public sidewalk one time when I walked onto a parking lot to get the shot I wanted.
As I understand the laws in California at the time, photos taken from public property do not need releases from the property owners nor from people unless you intend to use the photos commercially, although I did not explicitly research the laws myself.
Does he explain to his victims what he's doing? If not, isn't what he's doing to just for the benefit of the voyeurs(?) watching his videos?
Nothing to hide is a very relative concept. How many times it happens that something a famous person says or writes is completely decontextualized and thus the message that passes from their words is not what they wanted to convey?
The same thing can happen to anyone of us if our private life is looked with the eyes of another person.
The same thing can happen to anyone of us if our private life is looked with the eyes of another person.
If you have Android, go to Settings -> Privacy -> Permission Manager and double check the permissions granted to the apps on your phone. You would be surprised at what is there...why does a musical tuner app need to know my location??
>Our privacy is eroding. [...] The war is not lost, however.
Steven Rambam would probably disagree. He's a private investigator who's given many excellent talks on privacy at Hackers On Planet Earth (HOPE):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHwl6AyL6js&t=10m20s
He goes into exquisite detail on the ways in which private info is shared, sold, amalgamated, and analyzed by private and public entities, and how law enforcement uses (and abuses) these resources. That particular talk is from 2016, so things are probably even worse now.
Steven Rambam would probably disagree. He's a private investigator who's given many excellent talks on privacy at Hackers On Planet Earth (HOPE):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHwl6AyL6js&t=10m20s
He goes into exquisite detail on the ways in which private info is shared, sold, amalgamated, and analyzed by private and public entities, and how law enforcement uses (and abuses) these resources. That particular talk is from 2016, so things are probably even worse now.
See also Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother" book series -- esp the new one, "Attack Surface". It provides a rare combination of accurate technical details, fairly plausible scenarios, and approachability / suitability for a broad audience.
Pretty much all of Doctorow's work is worth a read, as a matter of fact.
We want a society that respects free will and freedom from coercion. Privacy is necessary to achieve that end. Let's focus on achieving that end.
Security experts spent 2 decades arguing for privacy. Very little has changed. For most people, privacy is not an end in itself.
Security experts spent 2 decades arguing for privacy. Very little has changed. For most people, privacy is not an end in itself.
> Very little has changed.
What were you hoping for, exactly?
https://w3techs.com/technologies/history_overview/ssl_certif...
https://letsencrypt.org/stats/#percent-pageloads
https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email/overview?e...
What were you hoping for, exactly?
https://w3techs.com/technologies/history_overview/ssl_certif...
https://letsencrypt.org/stats/#percent-pageloads
https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email/overview?e...
What I often miss in privacy matters conversations is a little talk about how we think about the future when data collection is happening today.
We assume that we keep progressing and not stepping back into our dark past. But is that realistic?
The person you are today might be respected and legal (in the sense of a country's law or society). But within the next 5 years, there could be a different kind of government, one that gradually reverses your rights. And suddenly the facts about you (each one of them already collected today through your browsing habits or followings/followers interests) can expose you, your family or friends, and even worse they could put you or them in danger.
We assume that we keep progressing and not stepping back into our dark past. But is that realistic?
The person you are today might be respected and legal (in the sense of a country's law or society). But within the next 5 years, there could be a different kind of government, one that gradually reverses your rights. And suddenly the facts about you (each one of them already collected today through your browsing habits or followings/followers interests) can expose you, your family or friends, and even worse they could put you or them in danger.
Wow! Black Mirror's Nosedive (Season 3 Episode 1) [1] is straight out of reality.
[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5497778/
[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5497778/
I ambivalent about online privacy. One one hand, I use ublock origin and privacy badger but on the other hand, last year facebook suggested I join a group for progressive asian christians. (I am not asian or religious) and although I've had an Amazon account for years, their recommendations to me are still terrible (I have turned off adblocking on facebook and amazon because I've ran into issues using them with it enables so I just gave in). So all the data they have on me doesn't seem to have done them much good.
This is an interesting argument. It seems to boil down to, "I don't see the effects of this surveillance, so the trillion dollar corporations who employ thousands of engineers to design the systems must be wasting their time." I have a hard time squaring that circle. Entire industries have deluded themselves in the past, but I'm not willing to be my future behavior on it being the case this time.
Also, everyone has something to hide.
In a constantly changing society, we don't even know what needs to be hidden.
Or, perhaps: "YOU don’t get to decide that you have nothing to hide when you give up your privacy."
I would rather privacy to not matters, why? Because hiding information incur cost and inconveniences.
The only reason i may care about privacy is because the information can be used to hurt me.
What need to be solved is the issue of "information used to harm" instead of hiding the information(privacy)
What is the real issue of want to lock my bathroom door? Because someone could hurt me while I take a shit, but if that issue can be prevented, I wouldn't need bathroom door to be locked.
The only reason i may care about privacy is because the information can be used to hurt me.
What need to be solved is the issue of "information used to harm" instead of hiding the information(privacy)
What is the real issue of want to lock my bathroom door? Because someone could hurt me while I take a shit, but if that issue can be prevented, I wouldn't need bathroom door to be locked.
This is just absolutely wrong.
I don't close the door when I use the restroom because I fear physical harm. I just don't want someone walking in while I'm using the commode.
I don't close the door when I use the restroom because I fear physical harm. I just don't want someone walking in while I'm using the commode.
>I just don't want someone walking in while I'm using the commode
Door is not the only way to solve this issue.
The question can be asked, why would someone walk in if they can see you using the commode ?
Door is not the only way to solve this issue.
The question can be asked, why would someone walk in if they can see you using the commode ?
Okay so I misspoke. I don't want anyone to see I'm using the commode. That's why the door is closed. I've lived places where the bathroom door is open most of the time, so just closing it is sufficient. I've lived places where it's closed all the time (e.g. pets) so it gets locked.
>I don't want anyone to see I'm using the commode
so then why ? maybe because of shame. So then its the shame that need to be fixed.
so then why ? maybe because of shame. So then its the shame that need to be fixed.
Or maybe its none of yours or anyone else's damned business. Point is it's not incumbent on a person to explain WHY they need or want that privacy.
So privacy matters because 'thats your business'.
Then it is equally valid for some other people to say privacy doesn't matter because 'none of yours or anyone else's damned business'.
If you trying to convince other why privacy matters, thats not going to be helpful.
Then it is equally valid for some other people to say privacy doesn't matter because 'none of yours or anyone else's damned business'.
If you trying to convince other why privacy matters, thats not going to be helpful.
> So privacy matters because 'thats your business'
> If you trying to convince other why privacy matters, thats not going to be helpful.
I'm not trying to. I'm pointing out that I, nor anyone else, has to. You aren't entitled to know why one wants privacy.
> If you trying to convince other why privacy matters, thats not going to be helpful.
I'm not trying to. I'm pointing out that I, nor anyone else, has to. You aren't entitled to know why one wants privacy.
fair enough, then likewise you aren't entitled to know why other don't want privacy.
At this point I have to believe you're either a troll or some sort of GPT-3 bot based on how you're almost trying to miss the point and - seemingly intentionally - misconstrue very easy to understand and generally accepted concepts.
No, i disagree with the premise of the article and simply trying to argue, within logic and reason, against it.
the shame belongs to the person that walks in and stares at you
The worst part about the concept of having "nothing to hide" is in the US you get tried by a jury for certain criminal cases. If you have something that a lawyer can't paint as illegal but clearly is not, it doesn't matter what your rights are. The jury is sending you to prison. Even if you didn't commit a crime.
"What do you have to hide" is such a bullshit form of victim blaming, thrown around by entities who don't understand or value the concept of consent.
No I don't fucking like you looking up shit about me that I didn't explicitly mean to share, and I don't owe you an explanation.
No I don't fucking like you looking up shit about me that I didn't explicitly mean to share, and I don't owe you an explanation.
Interesting topic.
I think, most people have something to hide but they think they could hide it even if the circumstances getting harder.
If things are hard to hide and you can still manage to hide them, you will be questioned even less. Because who would go through all that trouble?
I think, most people have something to hide but they think they could hide it even if the circumstances getting harder.
If things are hard to hide and you can still manage to hide them, you will be questioned even less. Because who would go through all that trouble?
[deleted]
Some people act like the war on corporate (and government) surveillance capitalism is lost.
I think that is the wrong attitude. Create friction by whatever means fit with your life style and work flow.
I do simple things like delete all cookies in all of my devices at least once a week, use the Duck Duck Go browser on iOS and iPadOS (I only use laptops for coding so I just use Safari and Firefox on my Mac and Linux laptops), disable location tracking as much as possible, and I use ProtonMail and Proton Calendar.
As someone once said, if you have nothing to hide, then you don’t have a life.
Personally, I believe that surveillance capitalism, with creeping neoliberalism and neoconservativism pose an existential threat to any semblance of democracy. Maybe democracy is a lost cause? I don’t believe it, and I am willing to put up some fight to at least try to preserve it.
I think that is the wrong attitude. Create friction by whatever means fit with your life style and work flow.
I do simple things like delete all cookies in all of my devices at least once a week, use the Duck Duck Go browser on iOS and iPadOS (I only use laptops for coding so I just use Safari and Firefox on my Mac and Linux laptops), disable location tracking as much as possible, and I use ProtonMail and Proton Calendar.
As someone once said, if you have nothing to hide, then you don’t have a life.
Personally, I believe that surveillance capitalism, with creeping neoliberalism and neoconservativism pose an existential threat to any semblance of democracy. Maybe democracy is a lost cause? I don’t believe it, and I am willing to put up some fight to at least try to preserve it.
[deleted]
> The overwhelming majority of people do not care about privacy. They ask why they should care if they have “nothing to hide”.
This is what I kept hearing from many people repeatedly. And I did a little experiment.
I bought an aged twitter account just to tweet a thread about privacy and see whether people care! )before iOS 14 was released) And I got 55,000 total engagements!
Some loggers are even selling (blogs with paywall) steps to turn off privacy settings!
This is what I kept hearing from many people repeatedly. And I did a little experiment.
I bought an aged twitter account just to tweet a thread about privacy and see whether people care! )before iOS 14 was released) And I got 55,000 total engagements!
Some loggers are even selling (blogs with paywall) steps to turn off privacy settings!
*"PRIVACY" IS LIKE "the environment" – it's about too many things to be useful, so everybody ends up trampling it for a host of petty reasons. Leading to a world that's degraded and hostile, and that would never have been chosen had the consequences been made clear.
[deleted]
Many a man that says he cares about privacy also doesn't really care, to be honest.
One thing that has always irked me is the carelessness by which a man may give out, and is expected to give out, his full name.
Almost everyone has accepted that this is a bad idea on the internet, but in corporal social interaction full names are given out as if they be blowjobs, and so much information can be uncovered from a man's name.
It needs some serious revisiting and consideration how this works and I think in today's modern æra we probably need to do away with a single unified name for all purposes and allow citizens to operate under pseudonyms depending on the setting, at a minimum to keep one's professional and social life more separate.
Another issue is visible faces in public. My jurisidiction on the eve of the corona pandemic actually passed a lot to ban full-face covering, worded neutrally, but everyone knew it was about certain Islāmic garments. Supposedly it was necessary that every citizen's face be publicly recognizable, yet now we all cover it with masks to no problem whatsoever.
Even without a pandemic, a man should have the right to obscure his face in public and be unrecognizable for whatever reason he might desire.
One thing that has always irked me is the carelessness by which a man may give out, and is expected to give out, his full name.
Almost everyone has accepted that this is a bad idea on the internet, but in corporal social interaction full names are given out as if they be blowjobs, and so much information can be uncovered from a man's name.
It needs some serious revisiting and consideration how this works and I think in today's modern æra we probably need to do away with a single unified name for all purposes and allow citizens to operate under pseudonyms depending on the setting, at a minimum to keep one's professional and social life more separate.
Another issue is visible faces in public. My jurisidiction on the eve of the corona pandemic actually passed a lot to ban full-face covering, worded neutrally, but everyone knew it was about certain Islāmic garments. Supposedly it was necessary that every citizen's face be publicly recognizable, yet now we all cover it with masks to no problem whatsoever.
Even without a pandemic, a man should have the right to obscure his face in public and be unrecognizable for whatever reason he might desire.
It's expected that not much embarrassing information would be out in the open under a person's full name.
I have nothing against giving my name to in-person acquaintances, simply because they don't have access to the right resources to dig under the surface of my public image. If they do have access to such resources, I trust them anyway to not pry too hard.
I have nothing against giving my name to in-person acquaintances, simply because they don't have access to the right resources to dig under the surface of my public image. If they do have access to such resources, I trust them anyway to not pry too hard.
Many companies publish various details about their empoyers under their name which an employer can't refuse; the same for a university.
My master's thesis and place of employ can freely be retrieved from my name and there is nothing I can do to hide this.
My master's thesis and place of employ can freely be retrieved from my name and there is nothing I can do to hide this.
What professionally inappropriate information do you have published about you by academic institutions and former places of work, or alternatively by you in your masters thesis?
I am not a proponent of "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" (quite the opposite, in fact), but disclosure of your information under academic and professional context is not only unavoidable, but actually beneficial. As long as the information is reported honestly, it serves as a public record of your positive reputation. This allows all the participants of the job ecosystem to make better decisions about hiring/accepting job offers, because it reduces the risk of the unknown. It's to be embraced, not avoided.
I am not a proponent of "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" (quite the opposite, in fact), but disclosure of your information under academic and professional context is not only unavoidable, but actually beneficial. As long as the information is reported honestly, it serves as a public record of your positive reputation. This allows all the participants of the job ecosystem to make better decisions about hiring/accepting job offers, because it reduces the risk of the unknown. It's to be embraced, not avoided.
> What professionally inappropriate information do you have published about you by academic institutions and former places of work, or alternatively by you in your masters thesis?
So pretty much the “I have nothing to hide”-argument?
There is nothing “professionally inappropriate”; I simply do not want arbitrary persons to be able to look up where I work or what my master's thesis was about and many other things.
What if I ever were to find myself having a stalker who can now easily look up my place of employ to accost me there? What if others realize what my field of expertise is due to reading my master's thesis and use that to nag me for assistance?
> I am not a proponent of "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" (quite the opposite, in fact), but disclosure of your information under academic and professional context is not only unavoidable, but actually beneficial. As long as the information is reported honestly, it serves as a public record of your positive reputation. This allows all the participants of the job ecosystem to make better decisions about hiring/accepting job offers, because it reduces the risk of the unknown. It's to be embraced, not avoided.
And I could surrender my master's thesis voluntarily if I were to go job hunting to my benefit.
But in my jurisdiction looking up the name online of potential employees is already not allowed, though obviously it can never really be stopped, they can't reference what they find in there without opening themselves.
You say you are not a proponent, but this is absolutely a case of “I have nothing to hide.”; you decide what information is beneficial or not. Even if it be positive information to you, it might not be to others.
So pretty much the “I have nothing to hide”-argument?
There is nothing “professionally inappropriate”; I simply do not want arbitrary persons to be able to look up where I work or what my master's thesis was about and many other things.
What if I ever were to find myself having a stalker who can now easily look up my place of employ to accost me there? What if others realize what my field of expertise is due to reading my master's thesis and use that to nag me for assistance?
> I am not a proponent of "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" (quite the opposite, in fact), but disclosure of your information under academic and professional context is not only unavoidable, but actually beneficial. As long as the information is reported honestly, it serves as a public record of your positive reputation. This allows all the participants of the job ecosystem to make better decisions about hiring/accepting job offers, because it reduces the risk of the unknown. It's to be embraced, not avoided.
And I could surrender my master's thesis voluntarily if I were to go job hunting to my benefit.
But in my jurisdiction looking up the name online of potential employees is already not allowed, though obviously it can never really be stopped, they can't reference what they find in there without opening themselves.
You say you are not a proponent, but this is absolutely a case of “I have nothing to hide.”; you decide what information is beneficial or not. Even if it be positive information to you, it might not be to others.
SC's take (paraphrasingly, of course) is that without privacy, you're only rewarded for astroturfing your life & feigning a blandly successful life without pot holes.
The Social Dilemma (Netflix docudrama)'s take on it -- that facebook-et-al don't sell "your data" they sell "a guaranteed change in your behavior" -- is also a pretty damn powerful message.
This website's "nobody cares but they shouuuuuld!" baseline argument is not very effective, IMHO. These guys have the right idea -- giving access to privacy tooling -- but this post should've been more focused on education from the get-go. e.g. "We know you feel powerless about privacy. That's why we built [x resource]. Claw control back."