My nothing to hide argument is a little different; 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 probl…
I like this argument. My normal response to "I have nothing to hide" is: "Cool, can I take a look at your browser search/reddit history?".
Everyone knows what most people do in the bathroom at work, yet they still close the stall door.
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
You could move that a notch up and say that only the owner of the bar and their friends get to watch all these conversations and they keep copies. That should really freak out some people.
I think the key here isn't broadcasting, it's storage. In the future (?) we might think we can detect Parkinson's or MS very early through voice/video/typing characteristics. Your conversations were recorded, the data leaked to or purchased by a fly by night company hired by your bank, and now suddenly despite your excellent credit history you can't get a 30 year mortgage, you try to find a new job but companies are…
Banks can’t base mortgage on possibility of dying: https://www.55places.com/blog/60-year-old-can-get-30-year-mo... Even barring the legal requirement, banks already prices mortgages such that they can handle being stuck holding the title with no payment. Down payments or government guarantees prevent them from holding the bag unless the housing market takes a big downturn.
I like the speeding analogy. "I have nothing to hide" "Have you ever sped on the highway?" "Well, yes" "Imagine if the government reveals it's been tracking everyone's speed, and has decided to write everyone tickets for speeding." "That's insane, the government can't do that!" "Exactly"
I don't know, tracking everyone's speed to issue tickets doesn't sound nearly as bad as having a recording of 100% of all remote conversations.
What if they issue retroactive speeding tickets all at once for the last 10 years?
The best argument I ever heard was: "Would you give up your right to free speech just because you have nothing important to say? No? Then why would you give up your right to privacy just because you have nothing to hide?"
While I fully support strong privacy & encryption, there is absolutely no logic in this argument because it tries to build upon an unrelated hypothetical. A stronger argument should have tried to explain how this violates the constitution: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-c...
The logic used here is argument by analogy. Talking about the constitution would be a different argument.
I think the key here isn't broadcasting, it's storage. In the future (?) we might think we can detect Parkinson's or MS very early through voice/video/typing characteristics. Your conversations were recorded, the data leaked to or purchased by a fly by night company hired by your bank, and now suddenly despite your excellent credit history you can't get a 30 year mortgage, you try to find a new job but companies are…
Banks can’t base mortgage on possibility of dying: https://www.55places.com/blog/60-year-old-can-get-30-year-mo... Even barring the legal requirement, banks already prices mortgages such that they can handle being stuck holding the title with no payment. Down payments or government guarantees prevent them from holding the bag unless the housing market takes a big downturn.
Yes they can, they just can't use your age or other protected characteristics in the calculation of those odds. The ECOA doesn't say anything about health.
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
I'm stealing your analogy but I'm also ready for people to smugly proclaim that they would have no issue with livestreaming their entire life since they have nothing to hide.
Ask them if they'll turn it off in the bathroom or when having sex.
She will be 91 the next time she is up for re-election. Hopefully she’ll finally retire instead. I’ve been hoping for that for over a decade. Feinstein could not have been re-elected if it weren’t for overwhelmingly strong support for her in Silicon Valley. If she is up for re-election again, please vote for the other candidate (who will probably also be a Democrat!). Also, tell your friends. She wants to ban encrypt…
I agree with you about Feinstein, but: > Her voting record is further to the right than many republicans. She votes according to Trump’s wishes more than any other Democrat in the senate. This seems to imply she's in the middle of the pack for her democratic peers as it relates to Trump's wishes: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
I think you’re misreading it. It’s sorted by Trump affinity, and there is only one Democrat higher than her (she used to be at the top, but has been dethroned by a large margin by one Democrat).
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
> Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. If we are doing imaginary situations, the proponents of this bill can also do something like this: Imagine there is a bar, where the police are unable to go inside. Every day, p…
So now, the terrorists and child molesters still use the bar, but they always go into the bathroom to talk. The owner suspects that they are talking about bad things in there, and installs surveillance cameras so that if the police ever need to know what's happening in there, they have access. Would you want a real life bar owner to record you on the toilet just so that one day the police can track some bad guys easily? Probably not. Do you think it's reasonable to expect privacy on the toilet even when you're in a bar owned by someone else? Yes, even if it might one day make law enforcement a little harder. And just like we think that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using places intended for that in the real world, we think they should also have it online.