Live data from Hacker News

Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

robindoherty.com

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#101
post #16

Many "nothing to hide" proponents implicitly assume the only problem involves fact-based investigation by mostly-principled agents of a non-corrupt regime that has the same values people are comfy with today. However that's nowhere near the whole issue. We should also be scared of cases where some investigator or agency goes: "We need to make an example of somebody and That Dude is close enough." Or where regime chan…

Eh, the real issue is companies are being hacked, or they sell data to criminals

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#102
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trans people who wanted to assimilate and blend in have by and large been blindsided by the massive increase in scrutiny they've gotten from random people and increasingly lawmakers in the last few years in much of the western world, because some machinations of internet culture made the right wing start thinking about them a lot all of a sudden in the last decade. The reason they're getting more scrutiny is becaus…

Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. One group of people gaining rights doesn't take away the rights from another group, but that is commonly used as an argument to manipulate people into opposing the expansion of rights without confronting what that opposition really means. We saw it with integration in the US often presented as an infringement on the rights of white people. We saw it with gay marriage when people…

Sometimes they aren't zero-sum. For example, trans-identifying people being protected from employment discrimination. This takes nothing away from anyone else, but makes this group's lives easier.

But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example. If a subset of males are given the right to use such spaces, they cease to be female-only spaces. By doing so, this right is taken away from women and girls.

As another example, we can see this principle very starkly in women's and girls' sports competitions. There can only be one winner. If that winner is male, or is a team that includes males, this takes this prize away from female athletes. There are also a limited number of competition spots in most sports. Any of those taken by males denies a female athlete the opportunity to compete. This is a zero-sum game.

Regarding prisons, the expectation is that penal authorities work towards the goal of no sexual violence in prisons. Policies that demonstrably make this worse are of course going to be protested. In this case, removing the most important safeguarding measure for inmate housing: segregation by sex. The motivation is actually the safety of women prisoners. It's not an isolated case either, this was the first of many.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#103
post #32
post #11

I think most people who say "I have nothing to hide" are just mimicking a slogan they no doubt heard someone they respect or at least think talks well say Another common refrain, especially since Snowden, is just glib defeatism ("they already have all my info anyway") which is also a poor way to think about policy (and to make personal choices, but I won't argue those with most people) I really think the main reason…

> spying is abstract to them. Not just spying, but for many/most - the harm is also. Most people struggle on the day-to-day; getting worked up that a random boogieman is compiling a profile on them to serve ads leads to a big pile of 'so?'. When Windows Recall was announced as an example; I started asking (non tech, mostly boomer) people their take on it. I almost universally got a 'neat!' response. The security impl…

That is because the boomer generation was raised in a time where technology publicly wasn't turned on them in undisclosed ways. They were in control, and the laws had more teeth than they do now. Their cohort was incentivized to help themselves as well. Look at social security.

In my experience, their idea of the way the world works seems to have crystallized for them about the times of the 1970s.

They have significant blind spots which they likely won't ever recover from, they were blined and in many respects behave like children in a indoctrinated way.

They certainly didn't have to deal with arbitrary high costs because someone spied on them secretly and used that information as a false justification for increasing their auto rates since non-regenerative breaking is hard breaking and is therefore reckless driving (Lexis Nexus reports).

Heaven forbid that traffic conditions go from 65 to 15 in less than 200 feet. No, the fact tha you avoided getting into an accident is the same as reckless driving.

All parents want their kids to be better than them, some parents through circumstances largely in their control set the bar so low that it is a horrible feeling when their grown children exceed them at most levels.

Being more educated, rational, and mature at almost every level, then they were at a similar age, where there growth remained perpetually stalled in their 20s is a very damning situation. Especially since they blew their inheritance like a playboy at a party and will be leaving you almost nothing but debts except in rare circumstances.

Indoctrination and Menticide is real. Its subtle, and it blinds perception of issues.

John Meerloo, and Robert Lifton cover it well.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#104
post #62
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> spying is abstract to them. Not just spying, but for many/most - the harm is also. Most people struggle on the day-to-day; getting worked up that a random boogieman is compiling a profile on them to serve ads leads to a big pile of 'so?'. When Windows Recall was announced as an example; I started asking (non tech, mostly boomer) people their take on it. I almost universally got a 'neat!' response. The security impl…

Because who you are keeping something private from is often more important than what you are keeping private. For example, there are plenty of things I would be fine sharing with the anonymous internet that I wouldn't share with my coworkers. My coworkers knowing something embarrassing about me has obvious harm. There is no real harm in strangers knowing something embarrassing about me. And companies and governments…

You are mistaken. There is real harm in strangers knowing sensitive information about you. You seem to have a blindspot for how coercion works. There's harassment, struggle sessions, and blackmail as well as many other things.

If someone knows the normal hours you are at home, they can enter your home without much risk. They can plant evidence, Interfere in your life in ways that you can't easily fix, or even create situations where you get harmed or die from an accident. Information gathering is a necessary pre-requisite for a successful attack, and by itself it is an act of hostile intent.

The argument doesn't come down to dystopian future. It comes down to the fact that people in corrupt systems lie, and those lies can torture the victim without any recourse.

Information is abused regularly.

Once you see it, you can memorize it and transmit it without a paper trail. You can even have a plausible reason for needing to access that information in the first place.

It is ephemeral and its security relies on trust of an untrustable entity that trends towards corruption as a structural flaw.

All centralized hierarchies as a structure involving people either perform action based on a distribution of labor that is incentivized (away from a loss function), or they do so through corruption (in its absence).

In either case, there is incentive and there is no other means to overcome the natural friction towards inaction.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#105
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s not the data that’s collected, it’s who uses it and how any data that is being collected is at risk from being misused. only data that is not collected is safe. until we are able to fully protect data from misuse (which i believe is impossible), it is better to not collect data in the first place.

We either live in a society with laws that can protect us or we don’t. If we don’t believe in our society, if we need to carry guns all the time to protect us from the anarchy, it is of course really hard to believe we can build enough protections to prevent retargeted adverts.

it is of course really hard to believe we can build enough protections to prevent retargeted adverts

and that's the issue. now what is easier to enforce? banning of targeted ads? or banning of collection of data?

laws can not protect us from everything. because if they did we'd loose all of our freedom. laws need to focus on protecting us from things from which we can't protect ourselves. that is already difficult enough to decide.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#106
post #16

Many "nothing to hide" proponents implicitly assume the only problem involves fact-based investigation by mostly-principled agents of a non-corrupt regime that has the same values people are comfy with today. However that's nowhere near the whole issue. We should also be scared of cases where some investigator or agency goes: "We need to make an example of somebody and That Dude is close enough." Or where regime chan…

Eh, the real issue is companies are being hacked, or they sell data to criminals

The real issue is companies are incentivized to be hacked, and to collect everything so they can sell it as a subscription.

They have almost no liability for improperly securing their own systems and they allocate their budget accordingly.

There is a general presumption of no liability for software flaws. The execs gamble at whether or not they'll be hit with a data breach, or hit the jackpot (before they move on with their shares vested).

Its a simple calculus of headcount affected by cost of identity protection services for x time vs. ongoing recurring costs.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#107
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil rights are not a zero-sum game. One group of people gaining rights doesn't take away the rights from another group, but that is commonly used as an argument to manipulate people into opposing the expansion of rights without confronting what that opposition really means. We saw it with integration in the US often presented as an infringement on the rights of white people. We saw it with gay marriage when people…

Sometimes they aren't zero-sum. For example, trans-identifying people being protected from employment discrimination. This takes nothing away from anyone else, but makes this group's lives easier. But sometimes they are zero-sum. The right of women and girls to have female-only spaces, for example. If a subset of males are given the right to use such spaces, they cease to be female-only spaces. By doing so, this righ…

I asked you before but you probably didn't see it. Why do you make a new throwaway for every single thread where you post about the topic?

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#108
post #33
post #9

> If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. I've always taken issues with this phrase as many people would be lead to believe the opposite as well: If you have something to hide, you have something to fear. Which further suggests that as soon as there's anything you want to hide, that has to be something criminal. Of course, this is utter garbage. People _do_ have things to hide, and it is rarely cri…

Any politician pirring forth this stupid statement needs to be asked if they are willing to submit to having their lives filmed 24/7 with no censorship of anything. They won’t even let us see their “private” messages to other politicians let alone let us see them neglect their families.

This won't work, and they know it so they'll just lie and say yes knowing it can't ever happen. They also have influence and control over this information through the nature of their positions. Look at the recordings that went missing during Watergate.

The reality is those in power must deal with additional threats both foreign and domestic.

Any one of them would say yes, but then claim it would open the country to greater threats if controlled independently (which it does given the sensitivity of the access they have to make decisions), and the mere suggestion continuing this would be unpatriotic since the person suggesting this is opening up the nation to even greater danger. It is not unreasonable.

The Nazi's were clever, and evil, for those who haven't heard this paraphrase, it follows what was said during the Nuremberg trials by Goebbels.

Many people alive today have learned from them. Whether it is to prevent it from happening again (by warning people to action of the subtle indicators), or to follow in their footsteps (to quietly seize power as a demagogue).

Who can know the mind and character of another who only has to lie to get in office then can't be removed for failing to perform. Especially in times where there is little if any credibility or trust left.

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#109
post #85
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with making this case is that the threats are kind of stochastic. Usually what happens to an individual is that either a mistake occurs or some unpredictable factor changes to suddenly get them targeted. I had a relative who was blindsided by identity theft, fending off creditors for bills that were in her name because she was in some breach (I think maybe the sony one? Often not even easy to say how it h…

You inadvertently hit on another problem with this debate. The three historical examples you chose were identity theft, Muslims post 9/11, and trans people. The root of all those people’s problems isn’t privacy, it is some other broken part of society. So why focus on the symptom instead of that root issue? Muslim and trans people don’t want to hide their status, they want people to accept their status. Their effort…

> trans people don’t want to hide their status, they want people to accept their status

They want both (stealth/passing and acceptance)

Re: Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

#110
post #24
post #9

> If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. I've always taken issues with this phrase as many people would be lead to believe the opposite as well: If you have something to hide, you have something to fear. Which further suggests that as soon as there's anything you want to hide, that has to be something criminal. Of course, this is utter garbage. People _do_ have things to hide, and it is rarely cri…

No it doesn't imply anything criminal. Many people have things they wish to hide that have nothing to do with being illegal, from reasons for being fired from their last job to the amount of alcohol they're drinking alone at home to nude photos they shared with an ex, to... anything. There's a huge number of things to be potentially embarrassed about, ranging from things that most other people would say there's no ne…

Agreed, and sensitive information can be used to coerce and harass/bully.

Imagine situations where pregnancies and the mere fact that it happened is grounds for the family to throw you out, based on intolerance of their religious beliefs.

Anything that runs contrary to social moors which are no longer cohesive or consistent thanks in large part to marxism (woke/cancel culture) and an undue nihilistic influence, is fair game under critical theory.

There was a big article about 10 years ago (iirc), where as a result of Target's marketing department (data aggregation), the father knew before the daughter that she was pregnant based on her shopping habits (which they correlated to pregnancy).

Post reply on HN