Live data from Hacker News

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

papers.ssrn.com

291–293 of 293 posts

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

#291
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay argument aside, I appreciate the donation. I do kind of find the EFF to be insufferable in their outreach (hyperbolic), but that's a really nice thing to do. Thanks.

Fundamentally, I think we disagree on whether or not privacy is worth the cost of the people harmed by its existence. I don't think a surveillance state is necessary, but I also don't think bad people should be able to operate with impunity. I trust the American judicial system to provide warrants when necessary, and I believe such an "invasion" of privacy is both necessary and important to keep our society safe.

I further think it's a straw man when pro-privacy advocates pretend like their opposition believes everything should be out in the open; my original point was that nobody thinks everyone's laundry should be fully public. Nobody actually thinks "I've got nothing to hide" (the submission's title). That's not the opposite of total privacy, the "opposing" view is much less extreme.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If its not a police state why do you need widespread videocamera surveillance? Seems like you have an arbitrary definition of what a police state should be. If the police just needs to take interest in you to find something to jail you because you are breaking hundreds of laws everyday anyway, this is a police state.

> If the police just needs to take interest in you to find something to jail you because you are breaking hundreds of laws everyday anyway, this is a police state. Is it still a police state if you are breaking three laws every day? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/...

If it is used against you, probably yes

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

#293
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not assuming a surveillance mechanism, it's _describing_ one. Individual police keeping their eyes open _is_ a surveillance mechanism. Admittedly, just about the most banal one possible, but the anti-social behavior it's catching is also the most harmless. But the bad law does actually make it a problem.

Public racist abuse of a dead victim is the most harmless? Well it's a take, I guess. Go with it.

Oh you are among the 'words are violence' folks?
Post reply on HN