Live data from Hacker News

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

jacquesmattheij.com

241–250 of 321 posts

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

#241
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…

'Some might say "I don't care if they violate my privacy; I've got nothing to hide." Help them understand that they are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of human rights. Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you. More simply, the majority cannot vote away the natural rights of the minority. But even if they could, help them think for a moment about what they're saying. Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. A free press benefits more than just those who read the paper.'

- Snowden

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

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good percentage of the time a weapon used by a homeowner during a home invasion is used against them. Get out of the house and let the authorities deal with it. Your stuff isn't worth your life or your family's continued safety. Remember that most burglars aren't as shocked or scared as you are during a burglary. It's a routine for them. Their attention is focused on what to do if someone in the house notices. If y…

A good percentage of the time a weapon used by a homeowner during a home invasion is used against them. This quasi-statistic (which I will take at face value), while interesting from a sociological perspective, does not actually inform individual decisionmaking. It's a thinly veiled way of saying to someone "you can't be trusted to handle a gun/knife/whatever properly" - which, even if true for the majority of humans…

You're right, I assumed that they were able to handle hearing words in a civilized manner.

Doesn't sound like they're capable of controlling themselves around a deadly weapon, or is that a bad assumption to make as well?

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the advice you'd give to a 5'5" woman who lives alone? "When the attacker gets in your house, grab a kitchen knife"? 'Cause I'd say, grab a shotgun and shoot in their general direction. Good for you that as a brave man called Rory it's easy to get rid of invaders with a kitchen knife. You'll probably have the same results with a fake knife.

A good percentage of the time a weapon used by a homeowner during a home invasion is used against them. Get out of the house and let the authorities deal with it. Your stuff isn't worth your life or your family's continued safety. Remember that most burglars aren't as shocked or scared as you are during a burglary. It's a routine for them. Their attention is focused on what to do if someone in the house notices. If y…

How about you decide what's best for yourself and I'll decide what's best for me.

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

#244
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do care about guns and having weighed up the pros and cons I have decided I would prefer to live in a society where they are not readily available.

What about living in a society where guns are readily available, but with low gun violence? Presumably it's the gun violence that bothers you, not the availability of guns.

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

#245
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good percentage of the time a weapon used by a homeowner during a home invasion is used against them. Get out of the house and let the authorities deal with it. Your stuff isn't worth your life or your family's continued safety. Remember that most burglars aren't as shocked or scared as you are during a burglary. It's a routine for them. Their attention is focused on what to do if someone in the house notices. If y…

How about you decide what's best for yourself and I'll decide what's best for me.

Are you a 5' 5" woman who was handed a gun to protect herself against someone likely to over power them?

Or are you someone who was personally offended by the generalization that they might be in the group of people, considered Normal Humans, who don't handle life-threatening situations like a person in the special forces?

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

#246
post #178
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

That sounds a bit odd. If you're standing up to the government, why would the laws matter to you. Or is it a bit like "Here's a gun, if we ever go too bad, shoot us". Which in turn raises the question why has no-one massacred Wall Street yet.

Who enabled Wall St?

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pri…

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. We have. The question of how to eliminate "class privilege" has remained open for quite a while and will for as long as the optimal distribution of scarce resources is still an active field of study. 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. You're delving into Foucault terr…

>Sociological privilege often refers to constant and immutable characteristics that cannot be taken away, and moreover makes the value judgment that the group with privilege is bad, and that said privilege must be abolished.

Privilege is no more or less than a source of cognitive bias in political opinions.

"I support drone assassinations because they make the world a safer place" is an understandable thing to say as a white guy in Iowa, but comes from a place of privilege: said white guy in Iowa probably does not understand or even consider the realities of living in constant fear of summary execution from the sky with no warning, has never seen a friend lose his children because they were within the blast radius of someone on the kill list.

No one is suggesting that we sic the drones on white guys in Iowa too out of some ridiculous idea of fairness. What we are suggesting is that his opinion is wrong, and should be excluded from American foreign policy, because when you remove the lens of privilege, drone assassinations stop looking like a good thing.

"I oppose welfare because if those poor people weren't lazy, they would have jobs" is a reasonable thing to say when the only world you know is one where your parents' friends offer you jobs and internships at dinner parties. This comes from a position of privilege: unemployment predominantly affects people of color in poor inner-city communities where people do not have such social networks, have in been deliberately excluded from those social networks, in a world where having a Black-sounding name on your resume makes you many times less likely to get the interview. (It is entirely possible to rationally oppose welfare on other grounds: poor incentive structures, support for alternatives like public works projects instead, ideological commitment to the free market, etc. But specifically the claim that poverty is a personal failure of character, unambiguously comes from privilege and is therefore not correct.)

When someone makes this argument and we call them privileged, we aren't asking for them to get laid off, we're arguing that their idea of social policy is immoral and people who believe it ought not to be voted into positions of control over government budgets.

tl;dr: privilege isn't why you're evil, but it is why your opinion is wrong

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you should be ashamed for being white, check your privilege shitlord You had to work pretty damn hard to get this out of that quote. His point was that a lot of people who say they (and by extension society, this part is important) don't need privacy probably don't need privacy because their privilege protects them. So then the goal has to be to convince them that their privileged position makes them a special case…

> But if I call myself "privileged" in this instance then all of a sudden people would be whining about social justice warriors or something like that No one has ever managed successfully to divorce the concept of privilege from the implication of blame, so saying that someone has privilege (or, worse in this context, is privileged), is tantamount to saying that they're a bad person and they should feel bad. Is it an…

>is tantamount to saying that they're a bad person and they should feel bad

What makes you (hypothetically) a bad person is having privilege and supporting policy which benefits the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged. The blame is assigned not for being a member of a privileged class, but for forming and acting on political opinions (including acceptance of the status quo) based on that privilege.

People who use privilege as an argument aren't asking you to be ashamed of being white, they're asking you to be ashamed of being conservative.

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

#249
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a minute, so you are ok with brandishing a knife, but not a gun? That is silly.

Not that I agree with the person you're replying to, but it makes some sense. (caveat: i'd never confront an intruder without my life or my families life in danger.) Guns have hosts of failure modes, and require specialized knowledge on their operation to ensure safety. Guns can even fire accidentally, with an accidental discharge on dropping the firearm being a possibility on any gun without a firing pin block (whic…

This comment made me get off my ass and remember my YC login. Your post parses correctly, but what you're saying doesn't really correspond with reality.

> Guns can even fire accidentally, with an accidental discharge on dropping the firearm being a possibility on any gun without a firing pin block (which is practically any long gun, the kind you can buy at Walmart in some states, with no waiting period in some states).

Poppy cock. Modern firearms don't just go off [0]. It is true that many long rifles and shotguns don't have a firing pin block. They have hammer blocks instead (the difference being a firing pin block is activated when the shooter grasps the grip, while a hammer block prevents the hammer of pin from making contact with the cartridge until the trigger is actually pulled). Most firearms incorporate multiple safety systems.

Furthermore, every firearm made in America in the last century has been certified as drop safe. The test is that the gun is dropped from a certain height (I think it's 39 inches) onto a concrete floor, with the hammer back and a round in the chamber - ie the worst case 'I was about to shoot something but butterfingered and now my live firearm is falling to the ground." That was instituted by firearms manufacturers after a spate of bad press when a factory defect meant a batch of Colt 1911's could fire if dropped with a round in the chamber (for those interested, the problem was with the strength of the firing pin spring; after several thousand rounds were fired through the weapon, the tension on the spring would be low enough that it could be over come by inertia). The 1968 Gun Control Act made drop testing mandatory.

> A poorly handled gun may shoot in a totally unpredictable trajectory, and a first time user would be unlikely to consider collateral damage. (Nursery behind the attacker?)

Yes, and an orphanage across the street in case you miss popping your own kid.

Here's the thing - everything you're saying is based on some pretty big assumptions that just aren't true. A study conducted back in 2007 by the Force Science Center where people who had never fired a hand gun before were put through simulated gun fights found that "naive shooters ... are amazingly accurate in making head shots at close range." [1] Point and shoot is something we humans tend to do really really well.

The biggest issue you aren't considering is that the biggest advantage of a gun is that you just have to have it. Power isn't shooting someone accurately - it's bringing a gun to a knife fight. Having a knife means you have to close to the target to engage - having a gun means I can stand back and project power.

[0]There are cases where guns will fire accidentally. These are extraordinarily rare, and are generally due to trying to use an unmaintained firearm in a way it isn't supposed to be.

[1] http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/66.html

EDIT: formatting edit

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

#250

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…

> why is it considered perfectly acceptable for them to track you to such a relentless degree?

Throwing around "tracking" as a dirty word made sense when the Internet was a brochure. Paper doesn't normally remember that you looked at it, and HTTP pretended to be a way of looking at a piece of paper, instead of what it is, an interaction.

Tracking is integral to all interactions. Taking sensory data from two different points in time, and deciding that both are representations of this thing called a person that's standing over there, and that said person comes with all these characteristics that are fixed, and all these characteristics that are mutable over time, and that I have all these previous experiences with that person, and a mental model of how they might react to certain things, and a mental model of their hidden internal state like mood or sleepiness, that is the essence of tracking. Friendship is sort of its ultimate form, so it makes sense that an electronic medium for friendship is the heaviest "tracker" on the internet. We humans can absolutely consent to and facilitate tracking that we want, or else we wouldn't associate with each other.

Google's suite of services and the tracking it performs make it more useful to me. When I search for an English word that has a special meaning in programming, it knows I mean it in the software engineering sense. When I open Google Maps I can tap two keys instead of 20 to get directions home. I have the agency to accept that.

The privacy issues of the modern world, to me, have little to do with tracking: rather, they are a violation of expectations, of confidence. You might think, when you send a "private" message on Facebook, that it will only be read by the named recipient. But it may just as well be read by an anonymous NSA analyst. That's where the evil lies. Or, you may think, when you're on a site other than Facebook, that Facebook has no idea you're there. But the "Like" button is watching you, associating that visit with your Facebook profile. That's what's fucked up.

Post reply on HN