Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People with nothing to hide

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 268 posts

Re: People with nothing to hide

#221

Post by simplemind »

We live in a society where secret detention is practiced. Where a relatively short time ago, we interned Japanese people.

Who cares about your anti-depressants.

A program like this perhaps isn't that big of a deal to a white, upper middle class family in Cambridge, but it's a threat to a Muslim man with a minivan, wife and two kids in Michigan who is afraid to call his mother in Pakistan because he might get flagged. And that's just today -- tomorrow it could be a Chinese family, a Jewish one (countries have been there before), a Mormon one or whatever our democratic mob fears at any given time...

It's all fun and games until there's a fascist dictator.

Re: People with nothing to hide

#222

Post by elbii »

It's not just about information the government is collecting on you. It's about who's responsible when that database of information is compromised by e.g. the Chinese and what they'll do with it.

Re: People with nothing to hide

#223

Post by homeomorphic »

capnrefsmmat wrote: post #188
john_flintstone wrote: post #78

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.…

Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't. Privacy is a way of restricting the government's power over you. Giving the government the power to read your email, tap your phone, and record your porn usage isn't bad simply because it's embarrassing. After all, the data will likely only be seen by a computer. But it gives the government enormous power to make decisions ab…

> Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't. Privacy is a way of restricting the government's power over you.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I'd also point out that most people do in fact have something to hide. So not only is it wrong on principle for the government to invade your privacy - massive surveillance could end up becoming a real, practical problem for many people. Both are important.

Re: People with nothing to hide

#224

Post by RBerenguel »

scotty79 wrote: post #122
RBerenguel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public/private situation, obviously. When I'm making a phone call from my home (or business!) to another persons' phone, I'm not in the public.

Obviously. But it's only because historically people couldn't listen to it without serious effort and if they did that it usually had malicious intent. If your phonecall is as easy and neutral to observe as your face or height when you show up on the street you can no longer expect it to remain private. Same way you coldn't expect conversation between two distant parties to be private before phone was invented an it…

Personal communication has thought to be private since ancient times. Emissaries were expected to deliver notes to the recipient without reading or tinkering with them in any way. And it goes a far way as communication goes, since mail (the paper, clay, stone, wax or whatever thing) has been assumed to be private since those times.

Also, I don't think my face or height are adequate analogies when playing against my wages, food preferences and trade secrets. All these details can easily give unfair advantage to "other parties" whereas my face or height couldn't help much except deciding I'm likely no good at basketball

Re: People with nothing to hide

#225

Post by [deleted] »

scotty79 wrote: post #122
RBerenguel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public/private situation, obviously. When I'm making a phone call from my home (or business!) to another persons' phone, I'm not in the public.

Obviously. But it's only because historically people couldn't listen to it without serious effort and if they did that it usually had malicious intent. If your phonecall is as easy and neutral to observe as your face or height when you show up on the street you can no longer expect it to remain private. Same way you coldn't expect conversation between two distant parties to be private before phone was invented an it…

[deleted]

Re: People with nothing to hide

#226

Post by king_jester »

corresation wrote: post #163
goostavos wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>We have no idea what they actually did prevent Ugh.. what terrible reasoning. The absence of data is not somehow possible data. >pointing out the failure in the Boston bombing is a poor counterpoint given that to many it would suggest that increased surveillance is necessary, not less. It's actually a rather good counter point. It shows that the FBI/NSA/big brother already can't process all of the data it has in a…

The absence of data is not somehow possible data When you don't HAVE the data, it is nonsense to make conclusions as if you have the data, which is exactly what you and others are doing. Terrible reasoning indeed. shows that the FBI/NSA/big brother already can't process all of the data Once again -- no data (you have absolutely no idea what data they have or don't have), but you can declare that the problem is proces…

> When you don't HAVE the data, it is nonsense to make conclusions as if you have the data, which is exactly what you and others are doing. Terrible reasoning indeed.

When you don't have the data and the data is kept completely hidden from you, the only reasonable course of thought is to assume that the data does not exist or is completely and totally flawed. When the NSA or gov't asserts that its data collection is protecting you, they must provide the evidence so that such a statement could be examined. If they do not provide such data, you can't assume anything about its existence or even its existence in the first place.

Re: People with nothing to hide

#227

Post by Silhouette »

capnrefsmmat wrote: post #188
john_flintstone wrote: post #78

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.…

Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't. Privacy is a way of restricting the government's power over you. Giving the government the power to read your email, tap your phone, and record your porn usage isn't bad simply because it's embarrassing. After all, the data will likely only be seen by a computer. But it gives the government enormous power to make decisions ab…

Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't.

Of course it is. Absolutely nothing about the principle of privacy and why it matters is specific to keeping secrets from governments.

The examples you gave are just a few things that can happen when someone finds out things about you that you consider private. Many of the same consequences, and plenty of other serious/life-changing ones, could also come about because an employer or union or family member or neighbour or insurance company or lawyer knew something they shouldn't.

Re: People with nothing to hide

#228

Post by akiselev »

sirclueless wrote: post #185
D9u wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

This is extremely counterproductive. You aren't going to get anywhere simultaneously bemoaning the damage caused by extremist acts and the excesses of the NSA. When you point out the failures of the NSA to stop specific instances of terrorism, it only suggests that they need more resources and legal surveillance. The reasons for wanting the NSA surveillance to stop have to be that the innumerable injustices suffered…

No, that's not what he is saying at all. With the maddening amount of resources ($80 billion for fuck's sake) spent on surveillance of both foreign and domestic communications, incidents where the agencies have the resources and intelligence to stop attacks but don't/can't shows that no amount of money spent or rights lost will give us absolute safety.

Re: People with nothing to hide

#229

Post by icebraining »

matteodepalo wrote: post #153
john_flintstone wrote: post #78

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 don't have nothing to hide from the government. This doesn't mean everyone I know should know everything about me. I am just a number for people collecting information about me, whereas for YOU or anyone in my social circle, certain kind of information can change my reputation and the way I'm seen by my peers forever. Stop equating "the government is doing statistics about people and keeping that information confid…

The government was also keeping the existence of PRISM confidential....
Post reply on HN