Live data from Hacker News

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

robindoherty.com

301–310 of 329 posts

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

#301
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do bathroom doors fit into this? In your utopia, if you ask me a question, do I have to answer honestly? That people would always want to answer honestly is not a satisfying answer.

Bathroom doors are great. Let's not confound surveillance of interactions and privacy in the extreme sense. Bathroom doors allow you to interact with yourself with some level of privacy. People know you're in there. They know for how long. They know if there are extreme sounds or scents. If you misuse the plumbing or other bathroom features there is clear evidence of this. In rare circumstances, the bathroom door can…

Excellent comment, but I lost you at::

> Most privacy advocates have a list of 'secrets' they fear will be used against them.

What makes you say that?

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

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government monitoring "for your own good" is pretty scary. We already have situations where people are attacked by the government or its agents because they did something that only harms themselves. For example [1]. Mass surveillance, if left unchecked, will eventually expand for whatever purposes the government wishes. Power is easy to incrementally grow (or in the case of the NSA, they simply ignore the laws) and v…

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S.…

That is a fantastic quote. Thanks for posting it.

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

#303
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do bathroom doors fit into this? In your utopia, if you ask me a question, do I have to answer honestly? That people would always want to answer honestly is not a satisfying answer.

Bathroom doors are great. Let's not confound surveillance of interactions and privacy in the extreme sense. Bathroom doors allow you to interact with yourself with some level of privacy. People know you're in there. They know for how long. They know if there are extreme sounds or scents. If you misuse the plumbing or other bathroom features there is clear evidence of this. In rare circumstances, the bathroom door can…

[deleted]

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

#304
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bathroom doors are great. Let's not confound surveillance of interactions and privacy in the extreme sense. Bathroom doors allow you to interact with yourself with some level of privacy. People know you're in there. They know for how long. They know if there are extreme sounds or scents. If you misuse the plumbing or other bathroom features there is clear evidence of this. In rare circumstances, the bathroom door can…

Excellent comment, but I lost you at:: > Most privacy advocates have a list of 'secrets' they fear will be used against them. What makes you say that?

Why do I think privacy advocates have a list of 'secrets' they fear will be used against them? Because most of them are intelligent people who understand how society works. Society today is full of lies, secrets, and hypocrisy. If someone knows your secrets but you don't know theirs, you're probably vulnerable.

I don't think privacy advocates, and persons such as myself, differ in opinion on the problem today. The difference of opinion is on where we're trying to get to and how we get there.

Tbh, I don't know yet how to get to the end state I'd like to see.

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

#305
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent comment, but I lost you at:: > Most privacy advocates have a list of 'secrets' they fear will be used against them. What makes you say that?

Why do I think privacy advocates have a list of 'secrets' they fear will be used against them? Because most of them are intelligent people who understand how society works. Society today is full of lies, secrets, and hypocrisy. If someone knows your secrets but you don't know theirs, you're probably vulnerable. I don't think privacy advocates, and persons such as myself, differ in opinion on the problem today. The di…

Ok, so you are making an assumption there. I don't think your assumption holds, it is very well possible to be a privacy advocate and to at the same time not have any crucial secrets worth keeping.

Privacy is a good thing, whether you have secrets worth keeping or not is immaterial, privacy doesn't have anything to do with secrecy. The two are often mixed but if you look a bit longer you'll see that they are in fact orthogonal concepts only very loosely related.

Taking your bathroom example: there is obviously nothing secret about what is going on in that bathroom, you can infer most of it from your own experience. And yet, we do seem to feel the need for privacy.

Another example would be a diary. Diaries are intensely personal and our etiquette around them is that if you happen to come across someone's diary that you do not open it to read it. It is considered a private document, even if it will not contain any secrets it may contain thoughts that the writer does not want to divulge to the world at large.

So privacy does not require any secrets at all to be a very important thing to many people, including privacy advocates.

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

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thanks to this technology, people can understand themselves better, if they choose to. It's truly bizzare that some people instead take away that the right way to "correct" this discrepancy is for companies to know less.

Why do you find that bizarre? Given the asymmetry of resources and conflicting interests between people and the companies who know so much about them, it seems perfectly reasonable to want companies to know less. The vast majority of that knowledge is used to take from the consumer, not to give.

It's not a zero sum game.

Good companies use information they collect to provide better services. Bad companies use it to rip people off. The problem of bad companies doing bad things is independent of companies having information about people.

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

#307
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more worried about a lack of government transparency than I am about personal privacy.

Por que no los dos? I'm worried about both, and I can't say which I'm worried about more . What are the reasons you are concerned about one more than the other?

Governments are exceptionally powerful. In theory they have control of 50% of my income, as well as the police, legal system, and military. Genuinely corrupt government is one of the scariest things I can imagine.

If the government is not corrupt, I have optimism in being able to get through a personal attack.

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

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wishing privacy on the internet is like wishing no turmoil while shagging during a massive religious events of paranoid gunned puritans. Why do you think that? > If privacy is such a problem for some it is not a technological problem, it is a political problem. Why do you think that? > If so, people concerned should make their revolution in an appropriate place: the real world, and let internet stay a public media.…

Because main manufacturers of equipment are also from paranoid puritans country ? (Huawey, Cisco, juniper, alcatel, nortel, ericson ...) And that it make MITM easy for agencies since government heavily subsidise telecoms maybe? ($$ for a backdoor) And since Internet is globally like a very fast Gutenberg press, it has the same property as printed paper: privacy is not a problem of the media, but of the institutions/o…

OK, I guess I'm starting to get where you are coming from. I read your original post pretty much as saying that people who wish for privacy on the internet are wrong.

I still disagree with you, though. Yes, of course, technology alone cannot solve the political problems. But I very much think that technology can play a role in implementing and securing the political will. If you think of a democratic voting process as a piece of technology, for example, that by itself won't make a dictator go away. However, if there is a general consensus that democracy is the way to go, the specific implementation of the voting process very much makes a difference as to whether rogue actors can subvert this political will or not. If you make it so that votes cannot be bought and that the general public can watch the election from start to finish, that makes a democracy robust against a minority of people who try to rig the vote, for example.

I think information technology has a similar role to play in securing privacy. You can build systems that are far more robust against surveillance than facebook, for example. That doesn't help if the police comes after you for not using facebook--but it might prevent Mark Zuckerberg from figuring out how to manipulate the masses to vote for him as the next president ... or whatever he considers his interest ;-)

Also, I think the internet is actually a pretty good basis for that. In contrast to previous networks, at its basis, it doesn't distinguish between clients and servers, and it is a mostly transparent network with all the intelligence at the edge, so it's technically relatively easy to build your own protocols and applications without approval from network operators.

As for the internet being the real world: Yes, I get where you are coming from, but I think the distinction in this way is still counterproductive, as it supports a narrative that is used by the other side that implies that somehow the internet is special and that therefore human rights don't apply, and that special (and usually more restrictive) laws are necessary, as if laws that forbid fraud, say, for some reason didn't already apply if the fraud was committed via the internet.

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

#309
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…

I left the NSA a few months ago largely for these reasons. While I knew I personally couldn't do much (if anything) to stem the onslaught against human rights, I knew at the very least I didn't want my life's work contributing to it. So I left, leaving behind a very secure sysadmin position with good salary, six weeks of paid vacation and incredible health benefits. Now I'm a 1099 independent contractor for a financi…

I applaud your courage! This is so great to hear. It's only when people stand up for what they believe, and nearly always at great personal cost that meaningful change begins to look possible.

It's so important to have activism and structures in place to protect whistle blowers and others not comfortable with our current direction to take this difficult path. Respect!

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

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice quote, but... "The Earth belongs in usufruct to the living; the dead have neither powers nor rights over it." --Thomas Jefferson, to James Madison, Sep 6, 1789 For all the influence exerted by people like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., they effected change with their lives, and not their deaths. One should not choose to die for a cause, or against one. Rather, live for your own principles, and teach…

> For all the influence exerted by people like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., they effected change with their lives, and not their deaths. I would argue the most important changes they affected were for themselves. You don't risk your health by helping someone who gets attacked to earn their gratitude, but to be able to look in the mirror. That's the only thing that gives enough energy to sustain certain…

"If you wish to examine a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon." — Bokonon (aka Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle)

Just because I mentioned specific individuals does not mean that I agree with them. I only acknowledge that they produced an effect that propagated beyond their own deaths through the actions of the devotees they acquired while living. I might also have mentioned prophets of various religions, though I may not follow any of them.

Skilled as I am at seeing the fnords, in the MLK address you quoted, under the obvious text, lies this subtext: Is my cause not great enough that you might be willing to die for it? If you are not, and have no greater cause to hold your loyalty, then you are more a walking corpse than a living man, and unworthy of my regard. It is very similar to "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." It is a recruiting speech. And every time a young black person gets "the talk", it is contradicted. According to MLK, every time black kids submerge their will in a police encounter, and come away from it alive, but humiliated, they will be dead inside until their bodies finally catch up. According to me, they will live long enough to either vote in comprehensive reform or to organize and rebel from a dearth of it.

Nonviolent resistance depends in whole upon the oppressors' general unwillingness to murder nonviolent protesters. Willingness to die only works insofar as the opposition is unwilling to kill. Gandhi's protests worked only because British forces in India were unwilling to massacre Indians wholesale. MLK's protests worked only because the segregationists were unwilling to kill in public, before the typewriters and cameras of nationally-published journalists.

If you are willing to die, and the other is willing to kill you, you would be prudent to arrange your affairs in advance, such that other people are positioned to impose meaningful consequences as a result. Otherwise, you are gifting your enemy with a tiny victory.

If you quit a job in the military-industrial complex for which you have some ethical concerns, such as one which enables dragnet surveillance, what is the meaningful consequence? Every failing of the project in recent months is scapegoated to you. The contractor hires a replacement butt-in-seat. The work goes on. Your sacrifice yields nothing. No one rises in gratitude to pay your bills. When you mention in job interviews that you left due to ethical conflicts with the former employer, you never seem to be a good "cultural fit".

Why then would anyone choose to do that?

I'll take the food and the decades. I won't go willingly to my grave, if doing so wouldn't be more meaningful than what I believe I could accomplish with the entire remainder of my natural life. Sometimes, you can't avoid it, but you should always try to not die as you work towards your goals. Don't fear death, but don't ask it out on romantic dates, either.

Post reply on HN