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

‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 293 posts

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#61

Post by _a_a_a_ »

kypro wrote: post #58
deepthunder wrote: post #10

The problem with the "I've got nothing to hide" argument is it's not "you" who decides what is "right" or "wrong". The entity doing the "spying" determines what is right or wrong. "You" might think "x" is ok, however the "spying" entity may have the opposite view. And it is the "spying" entity's opinion that matters, not yours, because it always them that have the power and authority in determining what is "right" or…

I completely agree with this. I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide". I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care abou…

> It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care about a teen who died in police custody, specifically that this teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey"

"

Rowan O’Connell, 23, was hit with a fine by magistrates today over the sick outbust following the death of Mzee, 18.

The teenager, described by his mother as a “gentle giant”, died after becoming unwell while detained by police officers at Liverpool ONE in July.

O’Connell took to social media website Reddit, where he made baseless allegations, labelling Mzee a “good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey”.

He added: “As I say, who gives a f**.”

"

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-mo...

So, Not quite what you said.

> or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution

That's not mild, and you either know it or should know it.

> I mean just this week an autistic child got arrested for calling a lesbian police officer a lesbian here in the UK.

No link eh? What a surprise.

---

edit: this isn't about the rights/wrongs of what was said in this case but your (deliberately?) incomplete description of them. I actually share your concern about freedom of speech but twisting facts doesn't build your case well.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#62

Post by _a_a_a_ »

tremon wrote: post #30
kvdveer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example: in the 1930, Dutch municipalities would record ethnicity for their citizens. The argument was that ethnicity wasn't something you'd need to hide, and it could be useful should you need to identify yourself. When in 1940 the German occupiers took over, those records turned out to be very useful for their genocide.

would record ethnicity *religious affiliation It makes sense that ethnicity would have been recorded as well, but FAFAIK the Germans mostly used the data on religious identity (i.e. which persons were a member of which church community).

And that makes what difference exactly...?

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#63

Post by dredmorbius »

Swizec wrote: post #27
baxtr wrote: post #2

I’m wondering: is there a good list of data privacy failure consequences? There are good lists of breaches but few describing what happened to the people afterwards. Credit card theft resulting in a loss being the most obvious one. Such concrete (real) examples would help me to argue with people who say: all this non-sense about data privacy. What would anyone want to do with your data anyways?

> I’m wondering: is there a good list of data privacy failure consequences? The ultimate example is how 1940’s Germany used 1930’s Germany’s census data. In 1933 it didn’t seem so bad to tick a box with your religious affiliation …

The Netherlands as well. Dutch census religious affiliation data were used by the imposed regime 1940--45.

Several Dutch officials enacted wholesale destruction of those records as the occupation became obviously imminent, which saved many, though the Jewish population of the Netherlands fell from 154,887 in 1941 to 14,346 in 1947.

The point being it's not necessarily your own government you need be worried about.

In another variant on this, surveillance records kept by the East German Ministry for State Security (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, a/k/a the Stasi) and Soviet KGB were acquired by successor governments (unified German and post-Soviet states including Ukraine). See: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/unearthing-soviet-sec...>

(I'm trying without success to find a reference to the destruction of Dutch census records, though I'm pretty certain this did actually happen.)

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#64

Post by wizofaus »

How many people actually believe the "nothing to hide" argument though? I don't doubt some do, but I'm pretty sure most of the pushback against privacy laws etc. comes from corporations who stand to benefit from collecting and selling private information about their customers. Though I will say some of the technical challenges thrown up by some privacy laws are considerable, and trying to comply to them (including being audited etc.) doesn't often feel like the best use of resources.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#65

Post by alaxapta7 »

someone321 wrote: post #42
salad-tycoon wrote: post #36

I’ve got plenty to hide, and I hide all my most prized things as best as I can. I enjoy obfuscating things s much as possible just to be a tiny grain of sand of irritation in big data’s crotch. I’m also maybe a bit oppositionally defiant but I enjoy hiding my shit. Why does anyone assume a right to know everyone’s business?

[dead]

Not OP, but one thing I do is having a fake name on my mailbox and doorbell. I figured my neighbours don't need to know, and parcel services don't care. I don't legally live on that address, so that helps.

I also try to keep my browser's headers more generic, especially the Accept-Language header (not applicable or particulary helpful for US residents, though). The rest (VPN, [and therefore] no Google and no social networks) I wouldn't consider an obfuscation.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#66

Post by hackernewds »

anotherevan wrote: post #60

"I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are." https://infosec.exchange/@itisiboller/109472911587284824

I'd like to save this quote. However Hackernews provides not much functionality in-platform to do so.

Although I will contend the quote needs to be amended, since this doesn't apply to agents whose actions and intentions are questionable, and I would prefer they are not able to hide them.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#67

Post by edholland »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #61
kypro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with this. I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide". I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care abou…

> It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care about a teen who died in police custody, specifically that this teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey" " Rowan O’Connell, 23, was hit with a fine by magistrates today over the sick outbust following the death of Mzee, 18. The teenager, described by his mother as a “gentle giant”, died after becoming unwell while detained by police…

Here's a link to the story about the autistic teen incident

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/police-arrest-autistic...

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#68

Post by hackernewds »

deepthunder wrote: post #10

The problem with the "I've got nothing to hide" argument is it's not "you" who decides what is "right" or "wrong". The entity doing the "spying" determines what is right or wrong. "You" might think "x" is ok, however the "spying" entity may have the opposite view. And it is the "spying" entity's opinion that matters, not yours, because it always them that have the power and authority in determining what is "right" or…

Would you agree murder is "wrong" and bad actors should be able to hide their culpability?

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#69

Post by bondant »

hackernewds wrote: post #66
anotherevan wrote: post #60

"I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are." https://infosec.exchange/@itisiboller/109472911587284824

I'd like to save this quote. However Hackernews provides not much functionality in-platform to do so. Although I will contend the quote needs to be amended, since this doesn't apply to agents whose actions and intentions are questionable, and I would prefer they are not able to hide them.

Well, you can add it to your favorite comments. Click the on the date on the post and then click on favorite.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#70

Post by hackernewds »

cortic wrote: post #40

Posted this three years ago, but its still relevant: My nothing to hide argument; Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? Surely 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 rich…

A murderer would like to hide their location history from civil justice authorities. We often argue the cons but not the pros of being able to trace history.

A lot of ongoing evidence is based on timestamped written communication. Including for the 1/6 indictment, here you could argue what constitutes as "right" or "wrong".

Post reply on HN