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

191–200 of 293 posts

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

#191

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

sdfghswe wrote: post #173
b112 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now! So how do you codify this? Legislation can't have specific words and actions in it, it would be out of date before it became law! So to target "offensive things", depends upon the opinion of the officers, the prosecutor, and so on! And can change at a moments notice! Oh bewoe to thee, which does not wat…

> The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now! Just don't make laws apply retroactively. Sounds like a trivial problem with a trivial solution. A woman misgendered etc doesn't matter that it was ok 20 years ago. It's not ok now and she did it now.

Still, it shouldn’t be an offence.

You might think your a woman, I might disagree.

Can we just agree to disagree? Does anyone need to be charged with a criminal offence over that?

If you feel motivated to take female hormones and chop ya dick off, you’ve got problems, but being called a man really isn’t one of the ones worth worry about.

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

#192

Post by b112 »

sdfghswe wrote: post #173
b112 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now! So how do you codify this? Legislation can't have specific words and actions in it, it would be out of date before it became law! So to target "offensive things", depends upon the opinion of the officers, the prosecutor, and so on! And can change at a moments notice! Oh bewoe to thee, which does not wat…

> The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now! Just don't make laws apply retroactively. Sounds like a trivial problem with a trivial solution. A woman misgendered etc doesn't matter that it was ok 20 years ago. It's not ok now and she did it now.

This still presumes that there is an accepted, official version of any specific language, and that all must adopt it, lest they court disaster.

The absurdity of trying to police language, is absolutely ridiculous. It stops nothing. For example, someone transitions from male to female. They want to be called a woman.

On twitter, I say 'Yes, you are a "woman"'. Note the quotes. What is the implication? Surely sarcasm, or an attempt to delegitimize the reference.

Are we going to send people to jail for quotes?

Are we going to be examining sentences for commas, quotes, and more?

And when is it an offense?

More so, who decides the rules? A committee of people from all walks of life? And who updates them?

After all, it was derogatory to call anyone "gay" 20 years ago, and you could be sued as a newspaper for saying so, and being wrong.

But now there is nothing wrong with being gay, so it is not hateful, and malicious to call someone gay.

Who manages the bad words?

And who informs everyone?

Most people in the US don't read twitter. Don't spend all day on Facebook. Many have no idea that "pronouns" are a thing.

If you look at twitter and Facebook, you'd think this stuff is all people talk about. If you talk to the average citizen, they rarely think about it, talk about it, or care.

So who updates them with this info, and, what words are ok this week?

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

#193

Post by sdfghswe »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #191
sdfghswe wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now! Just don't make laws apply retroactively. Sounds like a trivial problem with a trivial solution. A woman misgendered etc doesn't matter that it was ok 20 years ago. It's not ok now and she did it now.

Still, it shouldn’t be an offence . You might think your a woman, I might disagree. Can we just agree to disagree? Does anyone need to be charged with a criminal offence over that? If you feel motivated to take female hormones and chop ya dick off, you’ve got problems, but being called a man really isn’t one of the ones worth worry about.

I think that people for whom what _other_ people are or aren't is a big important issue are the ones with a problem.

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

#194

Post by FireBeyond »

midasuni wrote: post #178
fsckboy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. the guy publically posted a racist comment in the UK where there is not an unlimited right of free speech and anti-social behavior is regulated. I don't see the privacy concern. I prefer an unlimited right of free spee…

Where does have an unlimited right of free speech? Because once you start threatening politicians in the US see how far it gets you. Post a picture of yourself with an AR15 and a comment of “looking for Biden” and see how well that first amendment works.

We literally had Trump say of Clinton “I’m not sure what can be done about her, maybe some of you Second Amendment folk can do something”…

And it worked very well, because precisely nothing happened.

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

#195

Post by sdfghswe »

b112 wrote: post #192
sdfghswe wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now! Just don't make laws apply retroactively. Sounds like a trivial problem with a trivial solution. A woman misgendered etc doesn't matter that it was ok 20 years ago. It's not ok now and she did it now.

This still presumes that there is an accepted, official version of any specific language, and that all must adopt it, lest they court disaster. The absurdity of trying to police language, is absolutely ridiculous. It stops nothing. For example, someone transitions from male to female. They want to be called a woman. On twitter, I say 'Yes, you are a "woman"'. Note the quotes. What is the implication? Surely sarcasm,…

Speaking of language

> what words are ok this week?

This kind of language takes any presumption of good faith on your part. You cannot possibly believe that these kind of changes happen on a weekly basis, and yet you imply it in making your argument.

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

#196

Post by Skeime »

prmoustache wrote: post #190
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s a big if!

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

#198

Post by b112 »

sdfghswe wrote: post #195
b112 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still presumes that there is an accepted, official version of any specific language, and that all must adopt it, lest they court disaster. The absurdity of trying to police language, is absolutely ridiculous. It stops nothing. For example, someone transitions from male to female. They want to be called a woman. On twitter, I say 'Yes, you are a "woman"'. Note the quotes. What is the implication? Surely sarcasm,…

Speaking of language > what words are ok this week? This kind of language takes any presumption of good faith on your part. You cannot possibly believe that these kind of changes happen on a weekly basis, and yet you imply it in making your argument.

An impressive, well thought out response.

"Thank you"

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

#199

Post by psd1 »

simonh wrote: post #164
contrarian1234 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context, I'm generally sympathetic to the "I've got nothing to hide" people I find your example illustrates the point . The UK has insane libel laws The sane solution would be to address these laws, not to create mechanisms for people to arbitrarily evade laws A lot of pro privacy arguments seem to boil down to "well we should make it a bit easier for people to break the law, cus maybe the laws are just bad". Thi…

I think we need both. We need clearer and more just laws governing free speech, and we need the right to the protection of our private speech.

> we need

You're not wrong, but there are more pressing concerns

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

#200

Post by simonh »

psd1 wrote: post #199
simonh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need both. We need clearer and more just laws governing free speech, and we need the right to the protection of our private speech.

> we need You're not wrong, but there are more pressing concerns

The UK passes roughly 33 acts of parliament per year, and 3,000 Statutory Instruments. What other concern is so pressing that passing one act of parliament would render the nation unable to complete it?
Post reply on HN