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

51–60 of 321 posts

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

#51

Post by oneloop »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #40
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

This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different ideas. First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. There is however, the Bill of Rights which everybody is familiar with. It does outline protecting specific aspects of privacy which include such things as the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the 4th Amendment, (privacy of your possessions against unlawful…

He was not saying a "right to privacy" existed, and he certainly not saying that the rights you pointed out imply "right to privacy".

He was only pointing out that there might be other reasons to defend a right (or defend that idea that something should in the future become a right) other than me wanting to exercise that right directly.

I do care about freedom of speech even though, really, I have not much to say. Freedom of speech affects me in other ways (and arguably more important ways) than me personally being allowed to say certain things. Likewise, I do care about (an hypothetical) "right to privacy" even though I have nothing to hide.

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

#53

Post by oneloop »

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 was gonna say that at least in the tech world if you don't like a company you can just not use their products. But then it occurred to me that if you don't like a country you can just move...

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

#54

Post by ska »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #40
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

This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different ideas. First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. There is however, the Bill of Rights which everybody is familiar with. It does outline protecting specific aspects of privacy which include such things as the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the 4th Amendment, (privacy of your possessions against unlawful…

I don't think it is puzzling when you recall that these concepts are larger than the US view of them and that particular encoding in the US constitution.

Particular implementation details are interesting in their own right, but they are not the conversation.

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

#55

Post by pessimizer »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #40
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

This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different ideas. First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. There is however, the Bill of Rights which everybody is familiar with. It does outline protecting specific aspects of privacy which include such things as the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the 4th Amendment, (privacy of your possessions against unlawful…

He didn't mention the constitution, you did. These are philosophical ideas, not summaries of the legislation of a particular locality at a particular time. The fact that in the US, freedom of speech is mentioned in the Constitution (though subsequently abridged in any number of ways), the right to privacy came into existence through many court decisions, and freedom of the press doesn't exist at all in US law doesn't make them fundamentally different types of ideas.

>The supreme court refuses to protect privacy beyond those issues which are directly related to the Bill of Rights

This is simply wrong.

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

#56

Post by classicsnoot »

Squarel wrote: post #38
classicsnoot wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does persecution have to reach epic proportions before it becomes safe to acknowledge it?

To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing different opinions to me". Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married for example) this is not persecuting a group. To imply so is disingenuous.

First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered. Instead, you both thigh-slap about how silly it is for Christians to feel persecuted. My question still stands.

Secondly, I am no Christian. Indeed, I personally feel that religious beliefs of any flavor are a mental illness.

Thirdly, I am agun owner. I advocate the ownership of guns as a check/balance on the central government. I accept the gun deaths that accompany ownership (accidents, suicide, murders) as I believe the benefit far out ways the cost. I believe this because of what I have seen in countries where there are severe limitations on personal gun ownership. For me it comes down to this: when weapons enter the equation, you are either a Player or you are Furniture. I choose to be a Player.

Fourth and finally, I believe in complete free speech, no exceptions, and as such I in no way wish to limit you, or any person's expression. Still, any time people choose to scoff instead of respond, I can't help but feel they need to return to their seat and pay better attention in class before raising their hands.

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

#57

Post by PavlovsCat »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #25
PavlovsCat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Post-privilege is impossible by definition in any society where scarcity exists. Even if various identities are all elevated to an equal level of acceptance, the term "privilege" will simply be shifted to more nebulous concepts. Finally, the conclusion that reaching post-privilege will result in a feasible post-privacy does not follow at all. What, is the implication here that white men "on stages" have nothing to hi…

> Even if various identities are all elevated to an equal level of acceptance, the term "privilege" will simply be shifted to more nebulous concepts.

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

> Finally, the conclusion that reaching post-privilege will result in a feasible post-privacy does not follow at all.

From the claim that a post-privacy society would have to be post-privilege does not follow that all post privilege societes have to be post-privacy.

Right now, when people say "no privacy", that in practice means zero privacy for some or most people, and total opaqueness for others (e.g. the NSA, or people who can make things go away with bribes, etc.). It doesn't actually mean "no privacy for anyone". For that to be the case, society would have to be actually egalitarian, e.g. post-privilege.

> What, is the implication here that white men "on stages" have nothing to hide?

They don't get killed by drones for starters. Appelbaum lives in Berlin because he feels safer there than in the US IIRC, it's not like he doesn't have spook pressure in his life; but he still considers himself privileged, imagine that.

If someone says homeless alcoholics should be rounded up and put into camps, then the fact that they aren't that, and don't have a friend in that situation, is their "privilege" they may not be aware of. That has nothing to do with "identitiy politics" to me. And I don't see how that is nebulous either? "Privilege" is not a complicated word, it means what it means in context and is perfectly fine to use.

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

#58

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

oneloop wrote: post #53
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 was gonna say that at least in the tech world if you don't like a company you can just not use their products. But then it occurred to me that if you don't like a country you can just move...

Moving to a different country is an expensive luxury that's not available to some people. Also, US politics has a clear role in world politics, and these policies will be universal if we don't make it clear that they are not okay.

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

#59

Post by illusion »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #40
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

This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different ideas. First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. There is however, the Bill of Rights which everybody is familiar with. It does outline protecting specific aspects of privacy which include such things as the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the 4th Amendment, (privacy of your possessions against unlawful…

It may not be in the constitution, but it is a human right. As far as I'm concerned, that's even more important than the constitution.

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

#60

Post by vezzy-fnord »

classicsnoot wrote: post #56
Squarel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing different opinions to me". Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married for example) this is not persecuting a group. To imply so is disingenuous.

First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered. Instead, you both thigh-slap about how silly it is for Christians to feel persecuted. My question still stands. Secondly, I am no Christian. Indeed, I personally feel that religious beliefs of any flavor are a mental illness. Thirdly, I am agun owner. I advocate the ownersh…

First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered.

I did below.

Post reply on HN