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

121–130 of 293 posts

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

#121

Post by HardlyCurious »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #114
wnoise wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The police aren't the government Not in the ridiculous "party controlling parliament" sense, no. But they are absolutely the enforcement arm of the state, which is more on point.

No, they aren’t. British police, significantly, police by consent, are operationally independent of HM government, and cannot (currently) prosecute without the aid of the (equally independent) CPS. In England there isn’t even one single police force, and unlike the FBI, no normal part of the police is a part of a government department. (MoD Police are, I guess, but their remit is military policing). I was responding…

We only know what the NSA does because a person who leaked highly confidential documents and is now a refuge for the crime of showing the world what the US govt does in secret.

Do you really think the UK govt, or any govt, doesn't use the cloak of security and classification to do questionable things?

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

#122

Post by HardlyCurious »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #116
nonethewiser wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to ask… do you disagree with prosecuting offensive comments or not? You say it doesn’t happen often and they can’t enforce it. But do you think its a bad thing? Doesnt seem that way. The point is it shouldn’t be legal.

Do I think offensive comments can be prosecuted in practice? Yeah, I do. Just as there are limits to free speech in the USA, there are comments that can have consequences. The bar should be set high, and in general it is, but no, I don’t think hate speech is inherently free speech, for example. The US way of doing things is not a) the only way of doing things, b) intrinsically the best way of doing things or c) trend…

[flagged]

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

#123

Post by llbeansandrice »

GuB-42 wrote: post #77
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 o…

[flagged]

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

#124

Post by Zetice »

mptest wrote: post #111
Zetice wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is that this argument relies on people actually meaning “anything”. It’s a strawman that’s so good, you get people actually trying to argue it, but the real argument isn’t about absolute publicity of information, it’s about providing access to additional information as a means to investigate wrongdoing. Very few people are practically suggesting every single fact ought to be public about a person. Be…

>"anything [harmful] could be illegal!" isn't backed by anything real or lasting Are you serious? that's a pretty ahistoric view... Being jewish was illegal, being a free black person was illegal, shit, woman having freedom of medical procedure is illegal in some states today! how on earth can you earnestly suggest things won't be made illegal that will harm people

Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.

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

#125

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

HardlyCurious wrote: post #121
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren’t. British police, significantly, police by consent, are operationally independent of HM government, and cannot (currently) prosecute without the aid of the (equally independent) CPS. In England there isn’t even one single police force, and unlike the FBI, no normal part of the police is a part of a government department. (MoD Police are, I guess, but their remit is military policing). I was responding…

We only know what the NSA does because a person who leaked highly confidential documents and is now a refuge for the crime of showing the world what the US govt does in secret. Do you really think the UK govt, or any govt, doesn't use the cloak of security and classification to do questionable things?

I didn’t suggest any such thing, did I?

I am just observing that the scope of GCHQ’s abilities are obviously limited compared to the NSA (unless they have the most cost-efficient IT infrastructure in the world, and we don’t do cost-efficient government IT here even now). The budget just isn’t there for them to operate the way the NSA does.

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

#126

Post by runagate »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #88
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…

> Insulting people online or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution. "will often": no, not at all. Could occasionally. You're not helping your argument by overstating this. The courts are not stuffed with people being fined for saying things that are "mildly offensive". And nothing of what you're talking about is government surveillance. The police aren't the government, and the police…

> The courts are not stuffed with people being fined for saying things that are "mildly offensive".

If these sorts of speech laws were more consistently applied on everyone, maybe we could get rid of them.

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

#127

Post by elwell »

zlg_codes wrote: post #38
elwell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government can have that stuff of mine, but not just any random person.

Why trust an entity that has historically been proven to be untrustworthy? That's like getting punched by your bouncer and still expecting him to be on your side.

So I can get my tax refund direct deposit

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

#128

Post by Springtime »

GuB-42 wrote: post #84

PSA: please read the article before commenting. It does a good job defining what is the "nothing to hide" argument in a way that avoids the usual strawmen. The conclusion is also more nuanced and in my opinion way more interesting than what is commonly seen in HN comments.

Mmm, it's funny since many comments are the exact knee-jerk rebuttals to the titular argument that are deconstructed in the essay.

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

#129

Post by NovaDudely »

Zetice wrote: post #124
mptest wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"anything [harmful] could be illegal!" isn't backed by anything real or lasting Are you serious? that's a pretty ahistoric view... Being jewish was illegal, being a free black person was illegal, shit, woman having freedom of medical procedure is illegal in some states today! how on earth can you earnestly suggest things won't be made illegal that will harm people

Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.

Someone once said to me, it is easy to be enlightened when you have a full belly.

In the same vein, it is easy to grant social gains when in easy times. But we are in the liminal space between the boom of the 20th century and the blow back from same century of reckless growth.

Nowadays a lot of nationalistic rhetoric that would not have flown far has had a lot of traction over the last decade or so. And it is slowly becoming obvious that the frameworks for oppression are being constructed.

The idea that we can only go forwards with minor trips along the way is a very narrow interpretation of history. That the example given before was of the Nazis is especially accurate considering it came after the Weinmar Republic that was known to be particularly ahead of the times in terms of social progress and cultural facets. It could be argued that wouldn't be for almost another 70-80 years that they gained back what was taken away in next to now time.

Unfortunately, the one thing I have taken away from those that work as war correspondents - do not under estimate how fragile society is and how quickly people will turn against others to try and ensure personal safety.

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” ― Albert Camus"

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

#130

Post by ekianjo »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #88
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…

> Insulting people online or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution. "will often": no, not at all. Could occasionally. You're not helping your argument by overstating this. The courts are not stuffed with people being fined for saying things that are "mildly offensive". And nothing of what you're talking about is government surveillance. The police aren't the government, and the police…

> The police aren't the government,

The police is the dog of the government. What difference does it make to you if the dog or the master attacks you?

Post reply on HN