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

71–80 of 293 posts

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

#71

Post by anotherevan »

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.

The link I provided is the original source, if you want to bookmark that.

You can also click on the timestamp of a HN comment and get the link just to that, if you prefer to bookmark that.

Or there's cut and paste. You have lots of options, it doesn't need to be built in to every web site.

Regarding your suggested amendments, sorry, I have no control over what Martin's daughter says.

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

#72

Post by wendyshu »

chacham15 wrote: post #45

The simplest retort I've heard to "I have nothing to hide" is "then send me a nude photo of yourself." Theres nothing wrong with nude bodies, but it is definitely private. I.e. privacy has nothing to do with hiding wrong/illegal things. (obligatory disclaimer: a little inaccuracy saves a lot of explanation, but I think this gets the gist across)

Sure, where should I send it?

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

#73

Post by dbsmith83 »

_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…

> He added: “As I say, who gives a f***.” (sic)

I don't understand your point. You both said the exact same thing: "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey", except you also said the guy added "Who gives a fuck?" which basically means "who cares?". Does adding a "who cares?" make the originally phrase much different?

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

#74

Post by throw0101b »

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.

> I'd like to save this quote.

$ vi ~/quotations.txt

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

#75

Post by endgame »

dredmorbius wrote: post #63
Swizec wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Dutch census records

I'm pretty sure I saw this spelled out years ago in a groups.google.com post, but the amnesiac search engines of today are not yielding it up to me.

I did find these articles:

https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/

https://medium.com/@hansdezwart/during-world-war-ii-we-did-h...

And one of them references http://web.archive.org/web/20150812120743/https://stadsarchi... (archive link, site is no longer up).

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

#76

Post by Hanschri »

chacham15 wrote: post #45

The simplest retort I've heard to "I have nothing to hide" is "then send me a nude photo of yourself." Theres nothing wrong with nude bodies, but it is definitely private. I.e. privacy has nothing to do with hiding wrong/illegal things. (obligatory disclaimer: a little inaccuracy saves a lot of explanation, but I think this gets the gist across)

My version is "I have nothing to hide, but I still lock the door when going to the toilet". While I get the point of your retort, I find it can make people defensive and often derails the conversation because it can be interpreted as a gotcha. But that kind of reaction is proof enough that people value privacy. It's just that they don't necessarily think of privacy in their home as the same thing as digital privacy.

I'm happy people are more aware about privacy issues and talk about it, everyone and everthing has been mindlessly collecting data for too long, but it looks like things are finally moving in a slightly better direction. At least one can hope :)

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

#77

Post by GuB-42 »

chacham15 wrote: post #45

The simplest retort I've heard to "I have nothing to hide" is "then send me a nude photo of yourself." Theres nothing wrong with nude bodies, but it is definitely private. I.e. privacy has nothing to do with hiding wrong/illegal things. (obligatory disclaimer: a little inaccuracy saves a lot of explanation, but I think this gets the gist across)

The article addresses that exact retort, and others in the same style. Here is what it says.

> Such responses only attack the nothing to hide argument in its most extreme form, which is not particularly strong.

The article is way more nuanced, it makes a point in attacking the real argument and not the strawman. Framing the debate into a privacy/security tradeoff.

And btw, my naked body ranks pretty low in the list of things I want to hide. I just don't walk around naked in public because most people wouldn't want me to, it may even be illegal. It is interesting however how a government that says you should have nothing to hide when it comes to surveillance also says that naked bodies must stay hidden.

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

#78

Post by fasterik »

tromp wrote: post #49

Here's the first listed criticism of the saying on its Wikipedia page [1], by none other than Edward Snowden: > Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

That Snowden quote is a good piece of rhetoric and it's the first thing I think of when I hear the "nothing to hide" argument.

I'm not sure if it's actually true, though. It's possible that privacy and free speech are different enough that the logical parallel and inference made in the quote doesn't actually hold.

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

#79

Post by dionidium »

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…

There is a kind of sleight of hand at work in this counterargument, which is that nobody is advocating for a secret, extrajudicial, arbitrary set of rules about what is allowed and what isn't. Even if I say I'm OK with the government reading my email, all the work is ahead of them to prove specific charges in a court of law, should I catch their interest. The spy agency does not, in fact, get to decide what's right and wrong. The existence of a surveillance state does not imply the existence of a secret police with extrajudicial powers.

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

#80

Post by barrysteve »

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…

I wouldn't annoy a police officer before the Pan-Opticon was installed anyway.

When a Cop in the 90s arrests a guy because the cop got annoyed at something the 'suspect' said, you had the option to blame it on the cop's thin-skinned personality. Now annoyed cops can use the law directly.

The UK police implicitly allowing retributive online abuse is subtly humorous.

Post reply on HN