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

151–160 of 321 posts

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

#151

Post by tehwebguy »

Maken wrote: post #146
67726e wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For better or for worse that argument is facile in countries where guns are already plentiful. No one gets to choose whether their intruder will be armed.

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

#152

Post by jbrooksuk »

A friend of mine once put it this way to some guy that was trying to proclaim that he has nothing to worry about:

> Of course you have something to hide. It's not bad to hide things from others. For instance, do you mind if we talk about your sex life? Heck, can I watch you and your wife next time? Sex is natural, we all do it, there is nothing to hide!"

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

#153

Post by mgkimsal »

perfTerm wrote: post #107
jsingleton wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well put. The Open Rights Group regularly do briefings on things like this and one of the "Responses you might get and how to counter them" arguments is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear That isn’t true. Surveillance has been used against journalists, whistleblowers and human rights activists. Most of us want to keep parts of our lives private." [0] I've had people use the naïve "nothing to fear…

And even if I have nothing to hide why can't I fear for potential whistle blowers, journalists, or activists? It's a shame that we love to boil incredibly complex issues down into simple platitudes. You find it on facebook, on the news, on twitter (although short and sweet does work well there), and every where else you look and people you talk to. It's a shallow way to talk about things.

I agree, except I don't think it's "incredibly complex". The bigger issue is in reducing things to a soundbite, we almost always end up with something that just speaks to the individual. And as you pointed out, I may have nothing to 'hide' myself, but want to ensure the privacy of others as a basic freedom.

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

#154

Post by Chattered »

ams6110 wrote: post #145
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.

I'm thinking of this line from the Hippocratic Oath, which I understand to be quite historical:

"Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast."

The point is that this isn't being challenged in the latest privacy wars, even though it flies straight in the face of the completely nonsense mantra of "if you've nothing to hide...."

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

#155

Post by dalke »

joesmo wrote: post #65
dalke wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a persecuted group in the USA right now are gun owners." Pardon? That stretched the meaning of 'persecution' past the breaking point and into the realm of meaninglessness. Every driver needs a license, and the car needs to be registered and with a license plate. Car licenses are used for taxation purposes and to help the authorities identify the owner of a vehicles . Watch out! Come the next revolution, when the cyc…

It really depends on the state. Making blanket statements about guns in the US is simply ignorant and stupid. In NJ, for example, it's not even safe to move your guns when changing residences, let alone taking them out of the house at any other time for any other purpose (taking a handgun off your property is equal to committing robbery with it in the eyes of the law for example). There are some protections under the…

Yes, and I grew up in Florida where shooting off fireworks more exciting than sparklers and snakes, without a license, was illegal. As a loyal firework-American, I lived under the threat that my bootleg North Carolina bottlerockets could land me in jail.

Many Americans have no legal way to practice the traditional craft of moonshine. There are penalties for getting caught with even a part of a still. In Florida it's a http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-08-05/news/fl-wilton-m...

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

#156

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

chestnut-tree wrote: post #34
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…

"...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…

The fact that Google doesn't have the power to throw you in prison or kill you makes a lot of difference. Governments maintain a de jure monopoly on force and therefore we are at more risk from a government's ability to suppress us using our information than Google's ability to effectively influence people's purchases.

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

#157

Post by Taek »

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…

The original right to bear arms is about being able to stand up to an oppressive government. It's not something you are supposed to need in daily life, it's something you are supposed to need when your government decides that tax rates are 85%, curfew is 8pm, all electronic communication is banned, and any soldier is allowed to live in your home and rape any civilian.

The right to bear arms is ideally one you never need, but it's essential as a contingency plan. We've yet to see a government that didn't exercise horrible abuses of power and the right to bear arms hopefully keeps some of that in check.

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

#158

Post by dimino »

jbrooksuk wrote: post #152

A friend of mine once put it this way to some guy that was trying to proclaim that he has nothing to worry about: > Of course you have something to hide. It's not bad to hide things from others. For instance, do you mind if we talk about your sex life? Heck, can I watch you and your wife next time? Sex is natural, we all do it, there is nothing to hide!"

This is a terrible argument, mostly because it allows for the persecution of minorities. "You're a filthy commie?!? Isn't that something you want to hide!?!"

Freedom of speech (the human right, not the legal right) should allow you to have as many harebrained ideas as you'd like, and be as vocal as you'd like. You should be able to talk about your sex life, and you should be allowed to let other people watch you have sex (which you are, on both counts -- your friends examples kind of suck).

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

#159

Post by baddox »

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…

And that's exactly the same type of argument as "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide."

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

#160

Post by baddox »

Maken wrote: post #146
67726e wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you're physically weaker than the other person, it's pretty clear how it's worse. Two people with guns is a much more even match than two different-sized people without guns. And that's ignoring the criminals-will-still-have-guns argument.
Post reply on HN