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

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#71

Post by thirdtruck »

techsupporter wrote: post #27
iwwr wrote: post #9

In short, at the risk of trivializing the argument: The ability to gleam private details about people is having some power over them. The entire modern theory of government rests on limiting and dividing up the power of those in power. With mass surveillance, that balance is broken. Not only do we have private details on individuals, that knowledge is held by a small and unaccountable elite, protected by state secret…

The "unwittingly do something illegal" is the most common refutation I've heard used. I think it's the most powerful as an example of the fallacy of this argument and an example of how unwieldy our laws have become in the United States. A coworker used the following story, apt since he lives in a state bordering another country: "Let's say I go to Canada for a day trip, Montreal perhaps. I speak enough French to get…

I remember an old black and white film where a bad guy planted an illegal substance on another character (a trival slight of hand) and then sicced the police on him.

With possession laws, someone else can make you into a criminal without any intent or even awareness on your part.

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#72

Post by dchichkov »

thibauts wrote: post #58
chacham15 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the point that I was trying to make: when we write here, its in public. We have the expectation to be judged for what we say. Could you imagine if you had that feeling writing to your friends in private?

Of course knowing we could be observed has profound effects on our behavior. I wonder if any studies show it. This looks a lot like what religion can induce, and I would really like to see what happens once you ask people to "confess". I was about to say bad things about this all, but I won't. I'm not sure who's listening in, and who knows who will, tomorrow...

I think there are some studies on the effect of surveillance on human behavior. I've searched on google scholar, there are quite a few articles.

Here's an excerpt from one article, to give you a feel of such research: "in relation to the telephone, one feels ‘a subject’ and thus able to control the situation whereas, in relation to the camera, one is always ‘an object’. The object of a camera is in the situation of being a potential victim, without the opportunity to influence his or her own destiny. The object is forced to trust in someone else. This is why surveillance raises contradictions: to be placed in the position of a victim does not increase the feeling of being ‘in control’, but rather the feeling of being ‘under control’. However, while feelings of being under control may not be pleasant, they might still ensure one’s feelings of safety.", from ‘The gaze without eyes’: video-surveillance and the changing nature of urban space, Hille Koskela, 2000. http://old.geog.psu.edu/courses/geog497b/Readings/Koskela.pd...

I think there might be some empirical research as well.

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#73

Post by MaysonL »

iwwr wrote: post #9

In short, at the risk of trivializing the argument: The ability to gleam private details about people is having some power over them. The entire modern theory of government rests on limiting and dividing up the power of those in power. With mass surveillance, that balance is broken. Not only do we have private details on individuals, that knowledge is held by a small and unaccountable elite, protected by state secret…

Re: blackmail.

Given the number of sexual and other scandals that have come to light regarding Congressional representatives in the past few decades, one wonders how many have been blackmailed, and how many are currently being blackmailed.

See: http://www.davidbrin.com/blackmail.html

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#74

Post by bincat »

napoleond wrote: post #49
munin wrote: post #16

there's something that frustrates me about arguments like this. I think that technology is inescapably taking us towards a future where anyone and everyone can record everything that any individual does, perpetually, and at arbitrary scale. In many ways we are already there, especially in certain domains (gmail, facebook, cell phones, creep shots, etc). It sounds pessimistic to say "this is inevitable" and I'm sure m…

I'm working on something that I hope will turn back the tide somewhat: http://parley.co

I hope you can reveal more details of how you are going to accomplish what you've set out to do in the site.

In general, technically minded people who care about privacy like to see these kinds of solutions in open source form or there will be heavy resistance to trust it.

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#75

Post by dredmorbius »

msellout wrote: post #22
tnash wrote: post #4

I think the most powerful argument here is that just because one may think that they have nothing to hide, and they don't mind "having their picture taken naked and distributed to their neighbors" doesn't mean that they should enforce their beliefs on others.

That goes both ways. Just because one wants to keep secrets doesn't mean you should stop someone else who wants to know everything. To make the case for who is wrongly imposing their will, we need need a framework for measuring goodness. The author goes in that direction, talking about measuring the societal benefits of privacy and the systemic harms that privacy protects against. However, the "secondary use" harm wa…

False dichotomy.

The reverse of keeping secrets (asserting your right to privacy) isn't allowing others full snoop powers (denying your right to privacy), but allowing another to practice full disclosure (asserting their right to freely reveal all).

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#76

Post by dredmorbius »

diminoten wrote: post #57

Privacy, or a lack of it, requires an additional failure (corruption, or ignorance) to become a problem. So it's not privacy, it's ignorance and corruption we should fight for/against.

And yet, perfection in knowledge or execution of duties are impossible, so corruption and ignorance are givens.

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#77

Post by RestlessMind »

pretoriusB wrote: post #56
hooande wrote: post #28

Let me try to present the other side of this argument in a way that doesn't sound crazy: When one of your people dies, it really hurts. If you were the one in charge of guaranteeing the safety of that person, its a failure much deeper and more profound than the worst startup company failure. Most people will be willing to do anything to prevent the loss of another life on their watch. The monitoring of communications…

> There are practical reasons for government monitoring of communications. Bad people have existed long enough that it's safe to assume the trend will continue. Bad governments has existed even longer. Especially some of them like, you know, the one at constant warfare with other countries, the nuclear-bomb dropping on civilians one, the McCarthyism and J.E Hoover one, the still having the death penalty in 2012 one,…

You might catch some naive idiots that way but never the well organised big fish.

During the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai, Indian government tapped into the mobile conversations of terrorists. These tapped conversations helped in further investigations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks#cite_note-D... Clearly, these were "well organized big fish" and not "naive idiots".

the still having the death penalty in 2012 one

Whats wrong with death penalty? It is perfectly reasonable response to some kind of crimes. [An example: the terrorist, who was caught live in action, who killed plenty of innocent people. That guy surely deserved a death sentence]

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#78

Post by RestlessMind »

mikevm wrote: post #46
alan_cx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame you are down voted for this because you have an important point, our human contradiction. If government lets something bad happen because of privacy issues, we the people complain, and can vote them out. If the government pull out all the stops, including trampling all over privacy, then we don't like that either, and can vote them out. So what is a government supposed to do? The next problem is that we the peo…

Are you so naive as to think that the real terrorists will be communicating in the open? "Real" terrorists will use Tor, TrueCrypt, PGP, Steganography and any other tool in the toolkit to hide their tracks. I don't see how a gov't surveillance apparatus is going to catch any of them. IIRC, in 9/11 the problem wasn't that there wasn't enough surveillance, because information regarding the attacks DID reach the White H…

"Real terrorists" communicated in open using mobile phones, during 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai. These conversations were tapped by Indian government and were used in further investigations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks#cite_note-D...

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#79

Post by Kiro »

thirdtruck wrote: post #65
Kiro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exaggerating.

We look forward to seeing all of your account passwords posted in the next comment, then. I would recommend starting with your Hacker News account.

Irrelevant comparison.

Re: "I've got nothing to hide" and other misunderstandings of privacy

#80

Post by ajb »

vacri wrote: post #51
ajb wrote: post #45

It's ironic that this article is on google docs, which means I have to declare my identity by logging in to google in order to read it.

I was able to read it just fine in a browser (IE) in which I've never logged into anything and only use for testing statements like this.

Most people would not be able to do that.
Post reply on HN