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

141–150 of 321 posts

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

#141

Post by ams6110 »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #105
chestnut-tree wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...tech corporations like Google who collect personal data for living" I agree. The largest and potentially most-revealing information about you is captured by technology companies like Google and Facebook. The Amsterdam registry recorded "Name, Date of birth, Address, Marital Status, Parents, Profession, Religion, Previous Addresses and Date of Death" Create a Google account and you are asked to provide: Name, Gend…

And imagine if they get pwned. Not fun.

I think the working assumption should be that they have been. There is no way that a company that big is not leaking like a sieve. Between social engineering, disgruntled employees, and active intrusion, they is no way that have remained unpenetrated.

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

#142

Post by Zuider »

bmurphy1976 wrote: post #113
joshuak wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the argument is framed backwards. The question isn't, 'why do I need my privacy'. The question is, 'why do you need to take it'.

Well, that's not helpful. They already have an answer and it clearly works: because of the terrorists trying to take our land and take away our God!! Think of the children!! I fail to see how reframing the argument is going to change anything. What we need is WAY more transparency. If there's transparency, then the abuses will be obvious, and once people see the abuses they will say "enough is enough." That ultimatel…

>I fail to see how reframing the argument is going to change anything

I would argue that joshuak's formulation above is not a reframing, but the original and correct definition of the right to privacy. Just as with property and liberty, the default presumption should be that there is an intrinsic right of title, and that any challenge to that entitlement should face a heavy burden of justification.

>Tit for Tat. If you want to take away our privacy, then we MUST have complete transparency in return.

Such a trade off could really only be made to work in the light the formulation above.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

lookbothways wrote: post #45
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…

Man, if there ever was an instance of alienating a sympathetic audience, this would be it. How does one take a golden argument like "privacy is an inalienable right," turn it into a tired "you should be ashamed for being white, check your privilege shitlord" flamebait, and still get taken seriously?

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by thaumasiotes »

leereeves wrote: post #139
reagency wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guerilla warfare can change who wins, but it won't stop you from losing. A war has more than two sides.

> it won't stop you from losing One counter-example: the Taliban

Not Vietnam?

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

#145

Post by ams6110 »

Chattered wrote: post #117

In terms of things I want hidden, the first thing that springs to mind is my medical records, which I'd like to keep between me and my doctor(s). My understanding is that, historically, governments and just about everyone have respected that.

You might want to read more history.

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

#146

Post by Maken »

67726e wrote: post #77
rorykoehler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand about the want to have freedom to bare arms (aside from moral arguments about what high levels of gun ownership does to society, but let's not go there) is that the only time I can imagine needing a gun in life is during a time of civil war or some similar sort of uprising. It would not make any difference to me what the law was in this regard if lawlessness had already broken out and I feared…

Or when someone breaks into your apartment and the police have an average response time of, what, 10 minutes or so? How about when you pull over to assist a crashed motorcyclist and it turns out he's a DUI-case and attempts to car-jack you? How about when you see someone waltz into your neighbors backyard and kick in the door? All things that have happened to either myself, or a coworker in the past year. Is it unrea…

Aside from starting a gun race with the burglar and fearing losing your life altogether with your possessions, I never follow this reasoning. How is it worse facing without guns a unarmed intruder than facing with a gun a well armed one?

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

#147

Post by walru »

rorykoehler wrote: post #66
hammock wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or I don't care about freedom to bear arms because I don't have a gun

What I don't understand about the want to have freedom to bare arms (aside from moral arguments about what high levels of gun ownership does to society, but let's not go there) is that the only time I can imagine needing a gun in life is during a time of civil war or some similar sort of uprising. It would not make any difference to me what the law was in this regard if lawlessness had already broken out and I feared…

Ownership of guns or a citizenry with guns does not degeneracy make. Education, or lack there of, is the ill to the mention you made.

Take Switzerland. http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-...

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

#148

Post by rorykoehler »

67726e wrote: post #77
rorykoehler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand about the want to have freedom to bare arms (aside from moral arguments about what high levels of gun ownership does to society, but let's not go there) is that the only time I can imagine needing a gun in life is during a time of civil war or some similar sort of uprising. It would not make any difference to me what the law was in this regard if lawlessness had already broken out and I feared…

Or when someone breaks into your apartment and the police have an average response time of, what, 10 minutes or so? How about when you pull over to assist a crashed motorcyclist and it turns out he's a DUI-case and attempts to car-jack you? How about when you see someone waltz into your neighbors backyard and kick in the door? All things that have happened to either myself, or a coworker in the past year. Is it unrea…

My personal experiences in some of the cases you have mentioned. 2 times house break, both times I confronted the burglars with a kitchen knife and gave them an avenue to escape which they took. I would never want to kill someone because they tried take my property. It's just stuff and quite frankly I value human life much higher, even if it is the life of a criminal who is taking my things.

The fact that there are so many of these situations points towards a different and bigger problem in society and I would much rather energy was spent on fixing them than treating symptoms with firearms.

I do agree that the cat is out of the bag but I still don't want anything to do with guns. They are bad news and only good for killing which is an experience I would rather avoid in life.

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

#150

Post by rorykoehler »

nnutter wrote: post #96
rorykoehler wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand about the want to have freedom to bare arms (aside from moral arguments about what high levels of gun ownership does to society, but let's not go there) is that the only time I can imagine needing a gun in life is during a time of civil war or some similar sort of uprising. It would not make any difference to me what the law was in this regard if lawlessness had already broken out and I feared…

Maybe in that future you'll be able to 3D everything but if we lose the right to bare arms don't you think that would limit the supply of arms when that time came?

$7 homemade shotgun. No 3D printing. Ammunition supply would be the biggest issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4

Post reply on HN