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

If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 321 posts

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#11

Post by leoc »

michaelpinto wrote: post #8

Something that people in silicon valley just don't get is that that the above argument also applies to tech corporations like Google who collect personal data for living and then say "trust us, we'll do no evil". The industry is upset about Snowden because it cost them sales in China, but for the most part while it talks the talk it doesn't walk the walk. * If we're going to talk about WWII a good example would be IB…

Why restrict it to the past? Let's talk about Cisco and Falun Gong http://business-humanrights.org/en/cisco-systems-lawsuits-re... .

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#12

Post by higherpurpose »

Something important to note in the OPM data breach: 1.1 million fingerprints were stolen [1], and it would've been a lot more if say this happened 10 years later, and the US, just like Estonia, India and I think a few other countries, started asking their citizens for their fingerprints and stored them in their own databases.

When the governments start telling people "Hey, you already love using your fingerprint on that iPhone of yours - so why not give us your fingerprint, too? We'll make your life so much easier!", forgetting to mention that there's a drastic difference between the iPhone keeping a local "template" of the fingerprint, while the governments are likely keeping the fingerprint data directly and on their own servers - fight it as much as possible.

Remember you only have so many fingerprints, and even fewer of them you'll probably consider "practical" for authentication to devices and whatnot. Don't let companies or governments lure you into asking for your fingerprint and storing it for you on their servers "for your convenience".

[1] - https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/#WhatHappened

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#13

Post by redwood »

_bfhp wrote: post #7

Everybody already understands that those who claim to "have nothing to hide" are always those found in some intersection of sets representing those arbitrarily constructed classes of people which were invented and exist to extract resources from all those outside of the set. We have set in stone the history of Jews in Europe as containing the premise of "yes they were definitely outside of the class at the time" but…

I've read it a few times but am not sure I follow what you're saying. Is this high context writing? If so what is the background?

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#14

Post by MCRed »

higherpurpose wrote: post #12

Something important to note in the OPM data breach: 1.1 million fingerprints were stolen [1], and it would've been a lot more if say this happened 10 years later, and the US, just like Estonia, India and I think a few other countries, started asking their citizens for their fingerprints and stored them in their own databases. When the governments start telling people "Hey, you already love using your fingerprint on t…

If a full fingerprint image is captured, it can easily be replicated at crime scenes to frame you. While people think that this would be unlikely to happen, we have had nothing but scandal after scandal the past decade from Forensic labs-- literally faking evidence to get convictions or making up whole areas of "science" to get them (The recent FBI Hair Lab is an example of that latter.)

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#15

Post by MCRed »

MCRed wrote: post #4

GAYS ==== In the time after WWI, Germany was a relatively liberal country in some respects. The salon society was popular in Berlin and Gays and Lesbians were able to live their lives in relative freedom- not the freedom we have now in the USA, but not the level of persecution they would experience elsewhere. There were magazines that catered specifically to this population as well as private clubs for them to congre…

This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunition to a substantial discussion. IF HN is a filter bubble, where only politically correct perspectives are tolerated, then my post will fade into nothingness as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking. Why should I invest time in a community if only certain thoughts are tolerated by that community?

Oh, and this whole idea of "thought crime" is a mechanism by which prejudice is fostered and spread-- you saw it in Germany, Orwell wrote about it. We have it in action here in the USA... and on this site.

Surely you know where this will lead. In fact, anecdotally it already looks like this site has lost %80 of its participation... it used to be you needed hundreds of uproots to get to the front page, now only 10 will do it.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#16

Post by higherpurpose »

michaelpinto wrote: post #8

Something that people in silicon valley just don't get is that that the above argument also applies to tech corporations like Google who collect personal data for living and then say "trust us, we'll do no evil". The industry is upset about Snowden because it cost them sales in China, but for the most part while it talks the talk it doesn't walk the walk. * If we're going to talk about WWII a good example would be IB…

I agree, and I think Cisco, for example, is almost as bad as IBM was then, by being the architects of the "lawful intercept" [1] (backdoor [2]) protocol for their routers in China and elsewhere, which then facilitates the government's catching, torturing or killing of the dissidents. At the very least Cisco is as bad as the Hacking Team.

[1] - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3924

[2] - https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-dc-10/Cross_Tom/Bl...

There are other, much more loved, tech companies that do similar things, too. They know who they are. I just hope history won't be kind to them.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#17

Post by nitrogen »

redwood wrote: post #13
_bfhp wrote: post #7

Everybody already understands that those who claim to "have nothing to hide" are always those found in some intersection of sets representing those arbitrarily constructed classes of people which were invented and exist to extract resources from all those outside of the set. We have set in stone the history of Jews in Europe as containing the premise of "yes they were definitely outside of the class at the time" but…

I've read it a few times but am not sure I follow what you're saying. Is this high context writing? If so what is the background?

I think it's saying "Insiders exploit outsiders. Only insiders say they have nothing to hide."

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#18

Post by jorgeleo »

redwood wrote: post #13
_bfhp wrote: post #7

Everybody already understands that those who claim to "have nothing to hide" are always those found in some intersection of sets representing those arbitrarily constructed classes of people which were invented and exist to extract resources from all those outside of the set. We have set in stone the history of Jews in Europe as containing the premise of "yes they were definitely outside of the class at the time" but…

I've read it a few times but am not sure I follow what you're saying. Is this high context writing? If so what is the background?

I wouldn't be surprise if this robot writting. Remember that there are several organizations that create fake usernames and personalities, then is easy to taint group opinions by looking like multiple different people saying d The same thing. The post is correct English but the argument lacks of public context, or make many assumptions to make sense to the casual reader. So probably a robot sticking phrases together or a human that cannot pass the Eliza test

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#19

Post by vezzy-fnord »

MCRed wrote: post #15
MCRed wrote: post #4

GAYS ==== In the time after WWI, Germany was a relatively liberal country in some respects. The salon society was popular in Berlin and Gays and Lesbians were able to live their lives in relative freedom- not the freedom we have now in the USA, but not the level of persecution they would experience elsewhere. There were magazines that catered specifically to this population as well as private clubs for them to congre…

This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunit…

I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men, Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you claim to oppose.

Re: If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear

#20

Post by PavlovsCat »

dmvaldman wrote: post #3

"When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing to write." - Edward Snowden

> I've heard quite a lot of people that talk about post-privacy, and they talk about it in terms of feeling like, you know, it's too late, we're done for, there's just no possibility for privacy left anymore and we just have to get used to it. And this is a pretty fascinating thing, because it seems to me that you never hear a feminist say that we're post-consent because there is rape. And why is that? The reason is that it's bullshit.

> We can't have a post-privacy world until we're post-privilege. So when we cave in our autonomy, then we can sort of say, "well, okay, we don't need privacy anymore, in fact we don't have privacy anymore, and I'm okay with that." Realistically though people are not comfortable with that. Because, if you only look at it from a position of privilege, like, say, white man on a stage, then yeah, maybe post-privacy works out okay for those people. But if you have ever not been, or if you are currently not, a white man with a passport from one of the five good nations in the world, it might not really work out well for you, and in fact it might be designed specifically such that it will continue to not work out well for you, because the structures themselves produce these inequalities.

> So when you hear someone talk about post-privacy, I think it's really important to engage them about their own privilege in the system and what it is they are actually arguing for.

-- Jacob Appelbaum ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3h46EbqhPo&t=7m46s )

Post reply on HN