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

181–190 of 293 posts

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

#181

Post by falsandtru »

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…

In addition, "I've got nothing to hide" means precisely "I've nothing to my detriment". Needless to say, there is no such thing as a person who has nothing to his or her detriment. Of course, it is impossible to accurately know or predict one's disadvantage precisely. In essence, the removal of privacy is the deprivation of the right to remain silent in order to avoid such predictable and unpredictable situations.

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

#182

Post by belter »

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…

> "...Their surveillance operation surely operates far less less broadly than that of the NSA, which has far less oversight."

"The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, however, ruled on 30 January 2023 that MI5 broke key legal safeguards by unlawfully retaining and using individuals’ private data gathered via covert bulk surveillance." - https://www.computerweekly.com/news/365529894/MI5-unlawfully....

"MI5 spy who fantasised about ‘eating children’s flesh’ escaped prosecution despite machete attack" - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/19/mi5-spy-fantasis...

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

#183

Post by qwerty456127 »

Almost all the people overlook how any piece of precise data about them (even the fact they have bought a specific product at a specific shop on a specific day) can be used to easily manipulate them or their family into anything and that any data stored will eventually leak and become available to malevolent actors no matter how benevolent and competent the original data operator was. You can be a perfectly ordinary, lawful and likable person yet get your life ruined at any moment thanks to the tons of data collected about you.

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

#184

Post by belter »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #125
HardlyCurious wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ" - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gch...

"Americans pay GCHQ £100m to spy for them, leaked NSA papers from Edward Snowden claim" - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/americans-pa...

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

#185

Post by dspillett »

godelski wrote: post #150
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've got nothing to hide" Are you: Jewish? Trans? Gay? A woman? Pregnant? Black? Brown? A furry? Muslim? Christian? Rich? Poor? Need I go on? All these groups have at one time or another (including now) needed to hide. This is a forum full of techies, and I'm sure lots of people don't want to tell everyone they are a techie right away (remember when you'd get punched if you wore Google Glasses?), or talk about the…

It isn't just the visibility side of privacy, it is the latent risk of all the stored information that is being tracked and analysed because many of the organisations stalking you through your life are not terribly good at keeping that information secure and some of them are actively selling it around to any bidder.

Even if you think that you have nothing specific to hide, identity fruad can be a signifiant risk factor.

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

#186

Post by belter »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #146
ekianjo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I understand that in the simplest way this is true, and I am sure it is very clever, poetic and pithy. But this is not how it works in principle or in practice in the UK. The police work on behalf of the people, not the government. When government manages to suborn the police in even a small way it is very much noticed. It’s difficult for people outside the UK to see this, I suppose, but our experience with this is t…

"More than 1,500 UK police officers accused of violence against women in six months" - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/more-than-15...

"Police ‘warrior culture’ makes US-style police brutality a UK problem too" - https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/police-warrior-cultur...

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

#187

Post by zirgs »

epalm wrote: post #112
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 of this is “Just go ahead and send me your browser history, I’ll wait.”

Tbh most people who use Chrome already send it to Google. The ISP can only see the domain name. Google can see the full url. But it's so convenient to sync browsing history between multiple devices, apparently.

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

#188

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

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…

Your argument is rendered completely null by your flaccid half-apology at the end.

If you have something to say, say it and stand by it, or get out of the way.

What offensive language? Monkey? Was the guy black? One does have to admit some darker skinned people do look a little similar to gorillas. So what. That’s not an incitement to violence.

And the lesbian cop, she is a lesbian right? Who cares! How is that relevant to anything. A simple “don’t be a bellend” response should have covered it.

Sheesh! Some people really just need some bigger problems if the only things they feel motivated to act against is some low level name calling.

Toughen up princesses.

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

#189

Post by denton-scratch »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #156
godelski wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I've got nothing to hide" Are you: Jewish? Trans? Gay? A woman? Pregnant? Black? Brown? A furry? Muslim? Christian? Rich? Poor? Need I go on? All these groups have at one time or another (including now) needed to hide. This is a forum full of techies, and I'm sure lots of people don't want to tell everyone they are a techie right away (remember when you'd get punched if you wore Google Glasses?), or talk about the…

And that's just the current list of groups / identifiers; this may change over time as well. Like, right now right-wing peoples are terrified / fearmongering that being white and straight will become a targeted minority.

The logical response of those "right-wing peoples" should be to join the fight to make sure minorities are not targeted.

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

#190

Post by prmoustache »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #159
tremon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The point still stands; any kind of private information like ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexuality - NONE of those are relevant to a government, and ANY of those can be used to identify and persecute people if there is a regime or law change aimed at any of those categories. Tangentially related, it's why things like period trackers are dangerous too; the US has had a spate of anti-abortion laws, the data f…

> "NONE of those are relevant to a government"

It is in the context of taxes if you agree that regligious organizations would receive church tax from the government.

Post reply on HN