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

With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#11

Post by ddod »

zachlatta wrote: post #4

I'm frightened that 63% of citizens in their sample value "protection" over privacy. When I've tried to explain the need for privacy to those outside of my circle, I always find my explanation lacking due to my inability to articulate why exactly privacy is important to me. How have others been explaining why privacy is important?

The etymology is important. Private vs. public is the difference between the individual and the group. What makes us individuals is that we exist independently from the public. If our actions, thoughts, opinions, and histories are public, we cease to be individuals. In practice, that means that differences between people will become a thing of the past either due to being "corrected" by the public or when we feel we must change ourselves to conform to fit in with the public.

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#12

Post by thirdtruck »

zachlatta wrote: post #4

I'm frightened that 63% of citizens in their sample value "protection" over privacy. When I've tried to explain the need for privacy to those outside of my circle, I always find my explanation lacking due to my inability to articulate why exactly privacy is important to me. How have others been explaining why privacy is important?

You can point them to the horror stories from people who have been doxxed: identity theft, ruined credit, random stalkers at their front door.

Remind them that the government is composed of individuals, like police officers that stalk the exes they abused through phone records.

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#13

Post by kefs »

reddit user /u/161719 explains the harmful effects of government surveillance and dispels the "i have nothing to hide" argument.

https://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_belie...

bestof: https://np.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2aoig4/u161719_expla...

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#14

Post by tdkl »

zachlatta wrote: post #4

I'm frightened that 63% of citizens in their sample value "protection" over privacy. When I've tried to explain the need for privacy to those outside of my circle, I always find my explanation lacking due to my inability to articulate why exactly privacy is important to me. How have others been explaining why privacy is important?

I find Glenn Greenwalds explanation at TED quite compelling : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#15

Post by tptacek »

Privacy has always taken a back seat to security, going all the way back to the dawn of the republic. It strikes me that people who are militant about privacy are doing their cause a disservice by allowing the issue to be framed like this: a preference for "security" over "privacy".

The issue is and always has been where the line is drawn.

Instead of quoting Ben Franklin and talking about how dumb the American people are --- and the UK people and the French people and the Spanish people, who have comparable or worse tradeoffs in their laws --- maybe specific policy prescriptions would be a more productive thing to discuss.

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#16

Post by ynniv »

higherpurpose wrote: post #2

It seems when most Americans are afraid, they automatically believe what the government tells them and that it solution will work to "save" them or protect them. It seems to be exactly the same case with torture as well. Most seem to believe the US gov should use torture and that "it works". Facts be damned. Mass surveillance doesn't work [1] either to stop terrorists, but facts (such as the panel reviews saying so),…

They don't just accept what the government says, they also demand that the government do something, liberties be damned. I think this is the same reason the Republican party is so popular: people are voting for their own prosperity above all else. (That the the Republican party doesn't actually provide this is immaterial.)

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#17

Post by TillE »

cryptoz wrote: post #8
k-mcgrady wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting." I've been pretty angry about the revelations over the last year. I'm a private person and don't want the government violating that. However - even though I don't say the things your friends are saying I still use…

Right - that's fair, in my opinion. For work, I use closed-source software including Dropbox too. I should specify that I agree this is difficult or impossible to avoid, and that using these tools enables us to build things faster, which potentially is worth using them. I do it, too. But I do want everyone to care . If you're using the tool because it's convenient, and you know that it could be spying on you, you sho…

There's an odd view among opponents of various issues (eg, environmentalism) that if proponents can't do everything, then they're terrible hypocrites who may as well not do anything. This is of course ridiculous.

You do what you can personally, and you try to influence government policy. But not everyone can be a full-time activist.

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#19

Post by john_b »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #5

> The Post-ABC poll was conducted Jan. 12-15 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults reached on both conventional and cellular phones. It seems to me people who are able to be cold called (haven't opted out/been careful with their phone number/screen their calls) will be much less privacy conscious than a true random sample

I was about to post the same thing. The research methodology is very careless here. It reminds me of how so much psychological research has been reexamined after psychologists stopped using college students as their exclusive sample group.

The Onion should really do a parody of studies like this. "100% of Americans Answer the Phone When Strangers Call" or something like that. As it is, dubious research like this just generates misleading headlines that then misinforms public debate about important issues.

Having said that, based on personal experience I don't doubt the basic results in terms of being for/against privacy, but the numbers and methodology are probably garbage.

I'd be very interested in any study that used different communication mediums to ask equal numbers of randomly chosen people the same questions. Phone, email, Facebook, etc. I think it would raise a lot more questions than answers.

Re: With Snowden in the background, privacy takes a back seat to security

#20

Post by ewzimm »

bsbechtel wrote: post #10
k-mcgrady wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I'm 27, living in Toronto. Most of my acquaintances say things like "I have nothing to hide so it doesn't bother me", or "Dropbox is just so convenient, it doesn't matter about the NSA". It's upsetting." I've been pretty angry about the revelations over the last year. I'm a private person and don't want the government violating that. However - even though I don't say the things your friends are saying I still use…

DuckDuckGo has made vast strides over the past year, and you choosing to set them as your default browser will only help them improve faster. I had the same complaint as you roughly a year ago, and forced myself to switch for a month or so. After that month, I had gotten used to DuckDuckGo and haven't switched back. 99% of what I need can be found there, and for that last 1% of searches, it takes me approximately 500…

Don't waste time typing that, just use !s before your search for StartPage or !g if you want regular Google.
Post reply on HN