Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

robindoherty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 329 posts

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#91

Post by blub »

chishaku wrote: post #81
rhino369 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing people seem particularly blind about is that private companies holding data from their own purposes is the huge point of failure for privacy. The government can get your gmail, facebook, verizon, amazon data because those companies keep that data about you. The NSA doesn't need to spy on you, google already does. I don't think the NSA is reading my email, but I know Google is. Not to mention that when all t…

A lot of people are not blind about this at all. They understand fully that their data is collected and they expect nothing less than the top result of their Google, Amazon, and Facebook queries to match exactly what they are looking for.

A lot of people have an abstract idea that information is being collected, yes. I suspect that few people realize or know what the amount of information is, who has access to it, what purposes they use it for.

Does anyone remember that angry email they sent 5 years ago where they were criticizing their boss? Google does. What kind of profile can you build from thousands and thousands of such emails, messages and queries, and location data and pictures, videos, actions on social networks?

I think some companies have a better idea about who some people are than those people themselves.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#92

Post by Zigurd »

rhino369 wrote: post #74
Sir_Substance wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm inclined to agree. I'd like to see more active ostracisation against software developers that have worked for organisations like the NSA and GCHQ. If we can make it a career ending job, it will dramatically reduce their ability to recruit. However, I'd also like to see general software development think more closely about the role it has in normalising these things. Next time you start to create an account system…

How is Google or Facebook any better? They are spy agencies for advertising purposes instead of national security. Or companies that deploy ad sense or otherwise depend on companies like Google or Facebook.

Because one problem at a time. Instead of throwing up ones hands because some other thing is bad, too.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#94

Post by robmcm »

kmonad wrote: post #83

Whenever I read one of these articles I am wondering why the examples of WHY mass surveillance affects ME as average Joe negatively have to be so weak / contrived: For example, imagine someone convinced by the argument "nothing to hide nothing to fear". Would this example convince them that in fact they do have to fear something? "You might think twice about contacting or meeting people (exercising your freedom of as…

Ask to read through someone's bank statement, look at their photo library, access their medical history or read all their messages. I doubt anyone would be comfortable with someone doing that.

Another good example is the use of shredders at home, perhaps you should suggest people leave their sensitive data in a box on the pavement outside rather than shredding it.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#95

Post by PavlovsCat »

chishaku wrote: post #81
rhino369 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing people seem particularly blind about is that private companies holding data from their own purposes is the huge point of failure for privacy. The government can get your gmail, facebook, verizon, amazon data because those companies keep that data about you. The NSA doesn't need to spy on you, google already does. I don't think the NSA is reading my email, but I know Google is. Not to mention that when all t…

A lot of people are not blind about this at all. They understand fully that their data is collected and they expect nothing less than the top result of their Google, Amazon, and Facebook queries to match exactly what they are looking for.

Define "a lot" and "fully".

But more importantly, sure, there are people who think they deserve to be mistreated, there are people who are drug addicts to the point of barely being anything else and still would fight anyone who gets between them and their dealer, and of course and there are plenty of people who have no problem with all sorts of messed up things up to murder as long as they themselves are not on the receiving end of it. Yet even if 99% of all people regressed to that station, that wouldn't do one bit to diminish my own human rights. That some or even a lot of people are fine with certain things, whether they understand them "fully" or, which I find more likely, "not in the least", is the problem, not the solution.

Drive to the extreme: he right of people to do what the White Rose did will always outweigh the right of people to not be part of the White Rose. It's dissidents and persecuted minorities who define the boundaries of these things, not the people who are living in comfort in exchange for not standing up for anything or against anyone. They exist, and their opinion matters as a problem to be solved or worked around, but that's the extent of it. Some things can not be justified by anyone agreeing to them, people do not have that power even when numbering billions.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#96

Post by EliRivers »

robmcm wrote: post #94
kmonad wrote: post #83

Whenever I read one of these articles I am wondering why the examples of WHY mass surveillance affects ME as average Joe negatively have to be so weak / contrived: For example, imagine someone convinced by the argument "nothing to hide nothing to fear". Would this example convince them that in fact they do have to fear something? "You might think twice about contacting or meeting people (exercising your freedom of as…

Ask to read through someone's bank statement, look at their photo library, access their medical history or read all their messages. I doubt anyone would be comfortable with someone doing that. Another good example is the use of shredders at home, perhaps you should suggest people leave their sensitive data in a box on the pavement outside rather than shredding it.

I generally tell such people that I'll come round to their house next week to install the webcams in their bedroom. No need to wait for me; I'll just let myself in.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#97

Post by chongli »

iheartmemcache wrote: post #90
chongli wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors are actually professional . They have rigorous certifications, they have a professional board that administers examinations and issues licenses, they have a defined structure for reporting ethics violations with a code of ethics dating back centuries. Programmers are just a loosely-defined group of tinkerers, labourers, and the odd scientist or engineer. How do you expect to impose a structure on that? A teen…

Doctors (as a profession) have a professional regulatory board and are educated on the ethical proceedings, but doctors (as an individual) can be just as corrupt as anyone else. The difference is accountability within the profession . If a doctor starts doling out tons of prescription opiates, an auditing system is in place (Many levels in fact - either within the state, nationally via the DEA, by someone arrested wh…

Very informative reply, thanks! How do we regulate data-collecting institutions internationally? Look at the EU's Data Protection Directive[0]. As extensive as it is, it's struggling in the wake of the failure of the Safe Harbour Decision[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priv...

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#98

Post by codeshaman »

tobbyb wrote: post #64

I think the tech crowd is in denial about their role in surveillance. We expect professionals to behave ethically. Doctors and companies working on genetics and cloning for instance are expected to behave ethically and have constraints placed on their work. And with consequences for those behaving unethically. Yet we have millions of software engineers working on building a surveillance society with no sense of ethic…

Great words.

But I think it's already too late. The genie is out of the bottle and it's already doing it's darker things in many parts of the world.

One of the great things about technology, is that it knows no boundaries. But that is also it's biggest danger. Because powerful technology in the hands of weak people can lead to disaster.

Intelligence is the ability to create something from nothing, while Wisdom is the ability to choose (wisely) how to apply intelligence to reality - what to create and what not to create. If intelligence is the engine, then wisdom is the driver.

We have trained lots of engines but very few drivers. And that is what worries me most..

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#99

Post by ck2 »

The problem is people who have never been on the wrong side of an encounter with law enforcement have no clue about why all these "super tools and powers" given to police, TSA, FBI etc. are so incredibly dangerous.

They just watch the news and get fear-mongered into thinking, oh we better arm the hell out our "protectors".

Usually the first experience with abuse by police is enough to wake people up but if they are white and middle-class, such an encounter may take years to happen.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

#100

Post by rms_returns »

tobbyb wrote: post #64

I think the tech crowd is in denial about their role in surveillance. We expect professionals to behave ethically. Doctors and companies working on genetics and cloning for instance are expected to behave ethically and have constraints placed on their work. And with consequences for those behaving unethically. Yet we have millions of software engineers working on building a surveillance society with no sense of ethic…

Second this. The Dell customer base "hack" we heard about yesterday is an example of this. It was not as if some extraordinary unethical programmers hacked their database, but inside technicians who were supposed to guard that data turned out to be unethical. Its high time we give the same importance to ethics of tech personnel that we extend to doctors, lawyers, etc.
Post reply on HN