191–200 of 268 posts
Questions for people with nothing to hide: 1. Have you ever had an abortion? 2. Have you ever cheated on your husband / wife? 3. Are you currently looking for a new job? 4. Have you ever being diagnosed with a mental illness? 5. Are you currently on anti-depressants? 6. Were you ever sexually abused as a child? 7. Have you ever fancied someone of the same sex? 8. Have you ever had sex with someone of the same sex? 9.…
"People that say they have nothing to hide from the government are making the mistake of assuming they know what the government is looking for. "
(http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...)
Questions for people with nothing to hide: 1. Have you ever had an abortion? 2. Have you ever cheated on your husband / wife? 3. Are you currently looking for a new job? 4. Have you ever being diagnosed with a mental illness? 5. Are you currently on anti-depressants? 6. Were you ever sexually abused as a child? 7. Have you ever fancied someone of the same sex? 8. Have you ever had sex with someone of the same sex? 9.…
I seriously don't get the mouthfrothing outrage. For years and years, everyone knowledgeable kept saying - if you post it on the internet, it is public. You're using Google - Google reads your stuff. Algorithms build a profile of you, select ads, etc. You're using Amazon - Amazon knows and never forgets what you're buying and browsing for. You're using Credit Cards - the CC company knows a lot about you. You have a b…
And please don't try to tell me that the government only targets the guilty with the data they collect and the observations they make. Many, many innocent people are caught up in the government's nets every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand in how far this is an act of shaming. If I walk around the pool and tell people that I like to get thrown into the pool I expect somebody to throw me into the pool.
It's an analogy really close to "She's walking around in a slutty dress so she asked for it".
For that matter that is why I mentioned elsewhere that I'm less scared of the government than I am of my fellow hackers, when this is the mentality that is all too frequently employed. :-/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One important thing to recognize is that: "You can read my text/call logs" !== "You and the rest of the world can know everything about me" So someone saying they "have nothing to hide" doesn't really mean they would answer all the above question publicly, but rather there is no electronic record/evidence of anything they know they want to keep private. And, as another point of discussion, whilst the matters raised i…
One other important thing to recognize: many people have leaked confidential/private info, even without them realizing it. Example: the SMS messages I send to my wife tend to contain more sensitive info than the Facebook messages I publish for the whole world to see. This is because I trust my wife and when she's the sole recipient of a message, I tend to be more honest and open-minded with her than I am with the res…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Select bias. You don't know what they did stop.
"They" knew that the "Ft Hood shooter" had been in contact with extremists, yet we all know what the end result there was. 13 dead 30 + wounded
If it were the Stasi, Gestapo, or NKVD that noticed an Army major communicating with a Resistance element for any reason you'd have been able to count the remainder of that major's life in hours. FBI, on the other hand, went "Meh, not enough evidence to start an investigation".
So be careful about the conclusion you draw from that. All you've really said is that we currently have handcuffs too tight on the NSA and FBI.
I seriously don't get the mouthfrothing outrage. For years and years, everyone knowledgeable kept saying - if you post it on the internet, it is public. You're using Google - Google reads your stuff. Algorithms build a profile of you, select ads, etc. You're using Amazon - Amazon knows and never forgets what you're buying and browsing for. You're using Credit Cards - the CC company knows a lot about you. You have a b…
I do agree that many of us knew about the privacy implications of software as a service already and the outrage is somewhat artificial and about reminding others. It's still a notable event when huge amounts of personal data leave the different silos and is combined and exchanged. It's a breach of trust when you voluntarily give personal information to a company and then this information leaks to a third party where…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain to me then what the purpose of collecting all the public data about these people and publishing it would be.
Do you really not know, or do you just act dumb? To make people realize the possible consequences of surveillance. One of the assumptions is that the people aren't completely aware of the extent of surveillance. They assume it's simple as "someone listening to my phone call to my mom" or something as innocent. Something like that hardly has consequences for them, but something like piblishing their private informatio…
If there is a consequence of surveillance that would make these people change their mind, then publishing that information is hypocritical by somebody who thinks it is ethically wrong to expose information that a person might want to have kept secret. If there is no consequence, then the act is useless. If there is a consequence, then these people are using the precisely the mechanism that they argue is the reason we should have privacy.
I wanted the person I was replying to spell this out so I could make the point clearly using their own words, without them getting hung up over how I phrased it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Each of those tweets I can see says "nothing to hide from the government ". You are not the government. Secondly, the fact that you would stoop to doing exactly the sort of thing you oppose, because these people are on the other side of a debate, shows exactly the sort of thinking that creates these problems in the first place. Even if they explicitly asked for it, which they didn't , you still shouldn't do it if you…
He/she might work for the government. Now, or in the future. And you (and they) are assuming the government can keep private information private. And the second part of what you said is compelling. I do wonder though whether the benefit achieved by the action stfu suggests might on balance overcome any detriment.
Yup, and that's precisely the argument the government is making- the benefit of catching terrorists outweighs any detriment to privacy that people might have.