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

Why was this secret?

sivers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: Why was this secret?

#91

Post by gnaffle »

blah32497 wrote: post #74
coldtea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. That's because you're an average Joe. And even you, you use a pseudonymous account name here on HN. Now think of all the lives of change-makers, dissidents, activists etc that were fucked up with the use of such private information (from their sexual preferences to who they meet…

> That's because you're an average Joe. And I think this article is written targeting the average Joe. Everyone is getting off on tangents about how the gov't is going to go fascist and that privacy is the best thing in the world. He isn't arguing that privacy is inherently bad, or you should never ever have secrets. Yeah, if your trying to overthrow an fascist regime, it makes sense to have secrets. But again, that'…

But I think that's completely untrue. I'd rather argue that most people are too oblivious about what they should and shouldn't keep secret.

What in general would you say people keep secret that adds to their stress?

Maybe some people here on HN might be over the top paranoid, but Joe Average? Sure, maybe they shouldn't have that secret affair and hide it from their spouse, but they probably already know that's a bad thing.

Re: Why was this secret?

#92

Post by differentView »

kisielk wrote: post #57
jacalata wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You think that, for instance, someone trying to leave an abusive partner doesn't have more reason to want their whereabouts unknown than someone with no psychotic acquaintances? Someone who turned state's witness against their drug dealer friends?

On the other hand if they and everybody else knew the whereabouts of their abusive partner, wouldn't that actually contribute to their safety?

How so? Are you going to stay awake 24/7 to stop those abusers when they get too close to their victims?

Re: Why was this secret?

#93

Post by hrkristian »

blah32497 wrote: post #74
coldtea wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. That's because you're an average Joe. And even you, you use a pseudonymous account name here on HN. Now think of all the lives of change-makers, dissidents, activists etc that were fucked up with the use of such private information (from their sexual preferences to who they meet…

> That's because you're an average Joe. And I think this article is written targeting the average Joe. Everyone is getting off on tangents about how the gov't is going to go fascist and that privacy is the best thing in the world. He isn't arguing that privacy is inherently bad, or you should never ever have secrets. Yeah, if your trying to overthrow an fascist regime, it makes sense to have secrets. But again, that'…

Invasion vs invitation.

I'd happily share 99% (maybe even all) of my life with the whole world, every step taken and every breath taken, but that would be on my terms. (I kinda am, by agreeing to everything Google asks of me)

Would James Buchanan have a chance at becoming the President of the Unites States in today's society? Assuming he actually was gay: would a 2013 version of James Buchanan be able to keep that a secret if the right person in the right chain of command happened to be ill-willed?

Re: Why was this secret?

#94

Post by gnaffle »

foobarqux wrote: post #84
blah32497 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because you're an average Joe. And I think this article is written targeting the average Joe. Everyone is getting off on tangents about how the gov't is going to go fascist and that privacy is the best thing in the world. He isn't arguing that privacy is inherently bad, or you should never ever have secrets. Yeah, if your trying to overthrow an fascist regime, it makes sense to have secrets. But again, that'…

If you're a black person what happens to MLK-type figures matters to you, even if you're not them. You don't get it: You can't have democracy in a surveillance state.

It's not even about the surveillance state. You never know what will happen in the future and who will use the information. Maybe you're happy with the code you write now, but in 5 years you may regret publishing it for everyone to laugh about. I'm old enough that there are some pretty embarassing usenet posts from me archived forever. Luckily they take quite a while to find nowadays, but I've certainly learnt my lesson.

Re: Why was this secret?

#96

Post by gnaffle »

sivers wrote: post #35
blah32497 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasons for privacy are always so contrived. "Dystopian futures", "enemies trying to ruin lives" etc. etc. It never resonates with me. I think what the author is trying to say is that if you live an open life with few secrets, then your life will be less stressful. He's encouraging us to really reevaluate what we keep secret b/c when you sit down to think about it, it's most likely all in your head.

Thank you, blah32497. That's exactly what I was trying to say, and wonderfully succinctly put. :-) It could also mean reevaluating what you've made public, and deciding what should be secret.

I'd love for you to ask the person what she would think about you sharing her diary with everyone she knows (her family, her coworkers, her boss etc). Would it be equally meaningless and uninteresting to them?

Re: Why was this secret?

#97

Post by tedunangst »

Lagged2Death wrote: post #40
samstave wrote: post #7

> "I was surprised it was all meaningless to me. These pages meant the world to her, but to me they meant no more than any non-secret conversation we’d ever had. It was the same stuff that we all think. " Uh - yeah this is completely naive. Here is why; the informatin is meaningless to you only if you are not looking to manipulate, exploit, blackmail or have the upper hand of the person holding the secrets . This is…

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. -- Often attributed to Cardinal Richelieu

That quote doesn't really work for me, because it seems to be assuming that no other lines are available to provide context.

Or rather, instead of meaning "everybody is guilty of something", I interpret the message as warning about the dangers of relying on a quote taken out of context.

Re: Why was this secret?

#98

Post by justinlilly »

differentView wrote: post #92
kisielk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand if they and everybody else knew the whereabouts of their abusive partner, wouldn't that actually contribute to their safety?

How so? Are you going to stay awake 24/7 to stop those abusers when they get too close to their victims?

If the theoretical data is available on the theoretical abuser, the police could monitor it, or you could have a non-profit service which monitors the proximity and alerts authorities / sends a "get out of the house" message to you.

Re: Why was this secret?

#99

Post by gnaffle »

alecdbrooks wrote: post #86
amirmc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's flip that around. The key point would be "everyone's location ... No exceptions". Then you'd know if that abusive partner was approaching you (and call relevant authorities). The dealers would probably also be known without needing a witness. Of course, we'd also know who was sleeping with whom and when. It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine such a world but for it to be viable, society would have t…

I don't think someone fleeing an abusive partner would necessarily benefit as much from knowing the abuser's location as much as the abuser would benefit from the victim's location. The information would be symmetric, but the value from it might not be. Maybe the abuser has a car and victim is relying on mass transit. Or maybe the victim's best bet is staying with a friend whose residence is unknown to the abuser.

Agreed. I think even arguing this point shows a lack of understanding of how these cases work. Believing that information equality is the same as power equality is a fallacy.

Re: Why was this secret?

#100

Post by jnbiche »

lukeqsee wrote: post #60

When you live in a society where anything you do or say (or accidentally appear to have said or did) will be held against you, privacy matters. It matters so much you don't log-in to online messaging services because you're wary of SSL MitM attacks or send non-encrypted emails from that network or do a litany of other "normal" things. It definitely means you aren't 100% open like Sivers is suggesting. How do I know t…

Since you've shared that anecdote, may I ask why you chose to go to such a university? I'm guessing it's probably a religious university (don't know of any non-religious schools with such strictures). Was it for spiritual reasons, or for financial reasons?

Personal question, obviously, so feel free to tell me to shove off, but I'm very curious how intelligent people make these decisions.

Post reply on HN