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

281–290 of 293 posts

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

#281

Post by danShumway »

Zetice wrote: post #280
danShumway wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How you see the Holocaust as a parallel to what trans people are going through is a wild over-exaggeration of the situation, though it makes sense your argument needs such a thing as it can't stand on its own. We don't really need to imagine a hypothetical around that because we can look at the history of antisemitism after WW1 and see the parallels directly. Nazi growth was largely dismissed by political opponents…

So your response to, “ww2 was a long tome ago” is to pull an example from ww1? Feels like you’re not getting the point there… Western society learned the lesson from those awful events; they’re therefore not going to happen again.

> Western society learned the lesson from those awful events; they’re therefore not going to happen again.

"But it couldn't happen here" is so widely understood as a fallacy in thinking about how fascist movements operate and spread that it's become a meme at this point. There is no reason to believe that America would be incapable of mass-discrimination against a minority group.

But for the 4th time now, my more relevant response to your dismissal of the holocaust is:

> Society has improved slowly, via heavy investment from anonymous activists and advocates who put themselves in harms way to improve it. Every single one of those activist movements relied on privacy. Quite frankly, there really aren't many examples of social movements that have improved society that haven't heavily used privacy and anonymity to aid them. Certainly at the very least this displays a startling lack of knowledge about the history of race and gender in America.

> If that's not enough, consider that there might be a reason why we literally have laws preventing the requirement of disclosure of sex/race in hiring today? Consider the countless studies about how anonymity benefits the ability of oppressed groups (particularly women) to participate in public spaces online, consider that the Supreme Court has very directly said that anonymity and privacy are an essential component of 1st Amendment rights. You also still really haven't grappled with the fact that multiple states today are pushing to get access to medical records and social media messages both to prosecute people and label minority groups. These are not issues that are affecting only one or two people.

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

#282

Post by Zetice »

danShumway wrote: post #281
Zetice wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your response to, “ww2 was a long tome ago” is to pull an example from ww1? Feels like you’re not getting the point there… Western society learned the lesson from those awful events; they’re therefore not going to happen again.

> Western society learned the lesson from those awful events; they’re therefore not going to happen again. "But it couldn't happen here" is so widely understood as a fallacy in thinking about how fascist movements operate and spread that it's become a meme at this point. There is no reason to believe that America would be incapable of mass-discrimination against a minority group. But for the 4th time now, my more rel…

Which is just another form of: “because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it.” An argument we’ve already established as absurd.

You keep repeating the same logical mistakes, so you shouldn’t be surprised when I repeat the same refutations

And to be clear, the only person dismissing the holocaust here is you, by equating it to something completely different.

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

#283

Post by danShumway »

Zetice wrote: post #282
danShumway wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Western society learned the lesson from those awful events; they’re therefore not going to happen again. "But it couldn't happen here" is so widely understood as a fallacy in thinking about how fascist movements operate and spread that it's become a meme at this point. There is no reason to believe that America would be incapable of mass-discrimination against a minority group. But for the 4th time now, my more rel…

Which is just another form of: “because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it.” An argument we’ve already established as absurd. You keep repeating the same logical mistakes, so you shouldn’t be surprised when I repeat the same refutations And to be clear, the only person dismissing the holocaust here is you, by equating it to something completely different.

> "because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it"

Not a single one of the things I mentioned above only affects only a single person. The current harms in America today are sizable enough and severe enough to justify privacy. None of this is niche. If you think that current discrimination is something that only affects one or two people, you are burying your head in the sand.

Anti-discrimination privacy rulings did not get affirmed by the Supreme Court because it was a niche issue. The numerous anti-hate groups today (who all collectively agree with my point of view that modern privacy matters) are not focusing on niche issues. The essential privacy protections that allow for modern advocacy that you seem to take as a given are not niche issues and they affect huge swaths of the population.

Your math is wrong.

> And to be clear, the only person dismissing the holocaust here is you, by equating it to something completely different.

Gosh, you should let the ADL know that they're dismissing the holocaust: https://www.adl.org/resources/news/politics-privacy

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

#284

Post by Zetice »

danShumway wrote: post #283
Zetice wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is just another form of: “because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it.” An argument we’ve already established as absurd. You keep repeating the same logical mistakes, so you shouldn’t be surprised when I repeat the same refutations And to be clear, the only person dismissing the holocaust here is you, by equating it to something completely different.

> "because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it" Not a single one of the things I mentioned above only affects only a single person. The current harms in America today are sizable enough and severe enough to justify privacy. None of this is niche. If you think that current discrimination is something that only affects one or two people, you are burying your head in the sand. Anti-discrimination privacy ruling…

Ok either this is a niche issue or its the next holocaust. It can’t be both.

Your complete inability to be consistent in your argument kind of does my work for me. Look at the contortions you have to make to argue against the simple idea that western society isn’t doomed to repeat its worst mistakes.

If you had a good argument you’d have given it by now.

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

#285

Post by danShumway »

Zetice wrote: post #284
danShumway wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it" Not a single one of the things I mentioned above only affects only a single person. The current harms in America today are sizable enough and severe enough to justify privacy. None of this is niche. If you think that current discrimination is something that only affects one or two people, you are burying your head in the sand. Anti-discrimination privacy ruling…

Ok either this is a niche issue or its the next holocaust. It can’t be both. Your complete inability to be consistent in your argument kind of does my work for me. Look at the contortions you have to make to argue against the simple idea that western society isn’t doomed to repeat its worst mistakes. If you had a good argument you’d have given it by now.

> Ok either this is a niche issue or its the next holocaust. It can’t be both.

Your lower bounds on what qualifies as "not niche" is the hecking holocaust? Holy crud.

The holocaust was one of the single largest mass-death events in modern history. It is possible for a thing to be serious while not being worse than the holocaust. That is not a binary.

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

#286

Post by Zetice »

thimbles wrote: post #277
Zetice wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...please describe how what you've written is relevant to privacy advocacy.

It's another example of the balance of rights, just as privacy rights are. Also, the feminist activists who are advocating for women's sex-based rights are largely anonymous or pseudo-anonymous due to potential repercussions from vindictive men who oppose them. Online privacy in particular is vital for their activist movement to proceed without intimidation. It works both ways.

So it’s got nothing at all to do with the topic then, ok.

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

#287

Post by Zetice »

danShumway wrote: post #285
Zetice wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok either this is a niche issue or its the next holocaust. It can’t be both. Your complete inability to be consistent in your argument kind of does my work for me. Look at the contortions you have to make to argue against the simple idea that western society isn’t doomed to repeat its worst mistakes. If you had a good argument you’d have given it by now.

> Ok either this is a niche issue or its the next holocaust. It can’t be both. Your lower bounds on what qualifies as "not niche" is the hecking holocaust ? Holy crud. The holocaust was one of the single largest mass-death events in modern history. It is possible for a thing to be serious while not being worse than the holocaust. That is not a binary.

Nope, that’s your phrasing, not mine. I didn’t call anything here “niche”.

I also didn’t bring up the holocaust, that was also you.

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

#288

Post by danShumway »

Zetice wrote: post #287
danShumway wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok either this is a niche issue or its the next holocaust. It can’t be both. Your lower bounds on what qualifies as "not niche" is the hecking holocaust ? Holy crud. The holocaust was one of the single largest mass-death events in modern history. It is possible for a thing to be serious while not being worse than the holocaust. That is not a binary.

Nope, that’s your phrasing, not mine. I didn’t call anything here “niche”. I also didn’t bring up the holocaust, that was also you.

> I didn’t call anything here “niche”.

> Which is just another form of: “because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it.”

What's your definition of the word "niche" then?

Modern privacy violations harm enough people that they are worth taking seriously. They affect large swaths of society and bringing them up is not at all equivalent to saying that because something harms one person we can't accept it. Enough people get harmed by lack of privacy today to cross any reasonable threshold for justifing caring about privacy.

Incidentally, maybe re-read my comments, because I'm honestly really genuinely confused how you thought that I was arguing that modern privacy violations were niche. My consistent point every single comment has been than modern privacy violations are serious and affect multiple people. I'm at loss what you think I was saying other than "this stuff is a mainstream serious issue that affects a lot of people."

> I also didn’t bring up the holocaust, that was also you.

:) Yep, and my analogy stands and is supported by the vast majority of civil rights and social activist groups today, including groups like the ACLU and ADL. If you think the comparison is inappropriate, go argue with them. But you're right, you didn't bring up the holocaust; all you said was that everything that's happened since the holocaust belongs in the same category as saying "because it harms one person ever, we can't accept it."

Which... holy crud, you need to pay attention to the world if you think that.

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

#289

Post by Zetice »

danShumway wrote: post #288
Zetice wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, that’s your phrasing, not mine. I didn’t call anything here “niche”. I also didn’t bring up the holocaust, that was also you.

> I didn’t call anything here “niche”. > Which is just another form of: “because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it.” What's your definition of the word "niche" then? Modern privacy violations harm enough people that they are worth taking seriously. They affect large swaths of society and bringing them up is not at all equivalent to saying that because something harms one person we can't accept it. Enough p…

Modern privacy violations have nothing even remotely resembling the negative impact the holocaust had on Jewish people…

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

#290

Post by danShumway »

Zetice wrote: post #289
danShumway wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn’t call anything here “niche”. > Which is just another form of: “because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it.” What's your definition of the word "niche" then? Modern privacy violations harm enough people that they are worth taking seriously. They affect large swaths of society and bringing them up is not at all equivalent to saying that because something harms one person we can't accept it. Enough p…

Modern privacy violations have nothing even remotely resembling the negative impact the holocaust had on Jewish people…

And? Unless your cutoff point for "bad enough to care about privacy" is the literal holocaust, that doesn't change a single thing about what I've said in a single one of my comments.

It turns out that amazingly, it is possible for multiple things to both be very bad -- bad enough to prompt action and concern -- while not being the exact same amount of bad. It is remarkable, but true. For example, sometimes you might put your hand on a stove and it might be hot enough to burn your skin, but also not as hot as the surface of the heckin sun -- and somehow your hand will still be burned. It's just incredible the way that continuums work.

----

Look, I've donated $5 to the EFF in your name, which I'm hopeful will allow me to more easily internalize that convincing one singular person online that privacy didn't become obsolete when Hitler died is not a good use of my time or energy. Nobody is going to read down this far so there's nobody else at this point who's sake I'm arguing for; and HN is enough of a privacy-supportive forum that very few people on here needed to be convinced you were wrong anyway.

In contrast to things like the civil rights movement, transgender rights, abortion rights, and so on, this argument we're having right now is actually something that only affects a single person and is not worth the trouble. I shouldn't have gotten pulled into it; I make this mistake far too often. And I think that $5 is enough to offset any potential social impact you would have in this thread.

Post reply on HN