Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 293 posts

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#171

Post by tremon »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #159
tremon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would record ethnicity *religious affiliation It makes sense that ethnicity would have been recorded as well, but FAFAIK the Germans mostly used the data on religious identity (i.e. which persons were a member of which church community).

The point still stands; any kind of private information like ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexuality - NONE of those are relevant to a government, and ANY of those can be used to identify and persecute people if there is a regime or law change aimed at any of those categories. Tangentially related, it's why things like period trackers are dangerous too; the US has had a spate of anti-abortion laws, the data f…

My reply wasn't meant to refute the parent's point. I wanted to clarify because in today's society ethnicity is a much more contentious data point than religion. Given the prevalence of race-related issues in the media it makes much more sense to a present-day mind to say "maybe we shouldn't be recording ethnicity" than to say "maybe we shouldn't record a person's religion".

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#172

Post by sdfghswe »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #116
nonethewiser wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to ask… do you disagree with prosecuting offensive comments or not? You say it doesn’t happen often and they can’t enforce it. But do you think its a bad thing? Doesnt seem that way. The point is it shouldn’t be legal.

Do I think offensive comments can be prosecuted in practice? Yeah, I do. Just as there are limits to free speech in the USA, there are comments that can have consequences. The bar should be set high, and in general it is, but no, I don’t think hate speech is inherently free speech, for example. The US way of doing things is not a) the only way of doing things, b) intrinsically the best way of doing things or c) trend…

Right ok, so the reason why you're taking issue doesn't come from a principled place, but because you just so happen to believe these people should be prosecuted.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#173

Post by sdfghswe »

b112 wrote: post #157
tjpnz wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also a well publicised case where a mother was arrested in front of her children after misgendering a trans person on Twitter. The case was eventually thrown out but it seems the UK police have far too much power and flexibility in terms of what they can arrest someone for.

The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now! So how do you codify this? Legislation can't have specific words and actions in it, it would be out of date before it became law! So to target "offensive things", depends upon the opinion of the officers, the prosecutor, and so on! And can change at a moments notice! Oh bewoe to thee, which does not wat…

> The true problem is, what offended 20 years ago, does not offend today. And the same is true for 20 years from now!

Just don't make laws apply retroactively. Sounds like a trivial problem with a trivial solution. A woman misgendered etc doesn't matter that it was ok 20 years ago. It's not ok now and she did it now.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#174

Post by midasuni »

bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #88
kypro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with this. I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide". I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care abou…

> Insulting people online or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution. "will often": no, not at all. Could occasionally. You're not helping your argument by overstating this. The courts are not stuffed with people being fined for saying things that are "mildly offensive". And nothing of what you're talking about is government surveillance. The police aren't the government, and the police…

> for those viewers who persist in believing that the surveillance system in Hot Fuzz exists in reality...

They really do. Not just council cctv cameras, which are less problematic - any local Facebook group is full of pictures from ring doorbells of people who look like “trouble” who have the wrong skin colour, wrong clothing, wrong age etc.

This is the norm and is embraced by a nation of curtain twitchers.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#175

Post by antihipocrat »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #51
antihipocrat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real cases are everywhere, in front of everyone, every day. For example: Victims of domestic violence or stalking. Victims of personal vendettas or bigotry from figures in authority. Victims of exploitative employers. These victims have done nothing wrong and they need privacy. All kinds of people are randomly distributed throughout all professions and strata of society. Politicians, police, lawyers, doctors, posties…

> Real cases are everywhere, in front of everyone, every day W He is looming to something that is well written and convincing, something salient. Punchy Your post is not that. it is difficult to express this so wlel that it is irrefutable

I'm suggesting that there doesn't need to be a punchy irrefutable post that wins the argument.

Anyone who interacts with a variety of humans on a regular basis has all of the proof they need that entrusting anonymous others (including corporate entities) with personal information is a bad idea.

The day that humans no longer swindle and scam each other, no longer become jealous or seek revenge, and no longer use power for personal gain at the expense of others is the day we can all freely share everything with each other without worry.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#176

Post by midasuni »

i8comments wrote: post #93
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Insulting people online or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution. "will often": no, not at all. Could occasionally. You're not helping your argument by overstating this. The courts are not stuffed with people being fined for saying things that are "mildly offensive". And nothing of what you're talking about is government surveillance. The police aren't the government, and the police…

Government snooping is a reality if they find you interesting, even if youve done nothing.

I don’t mind that - if someone wants to tap Joe Bloggs’ phone then that’s fine. Get a court order with evidence that he might be doing something wrong

It’s scalable surveillance that worries me. Suddenly cctv which is pulled in case of a crime becomes constantly monitored, with face, gait, clothing, and other types of automated recognition, gathering data on everyone, pumping that data into pattern matchers.

But the U.K. population love it.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#177

Post by 369548684892826 »

MikePlacid wrote: post #113
anotherevan wrote: post #60

"I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are." https://infosec.exchange/@itisiboller/109472911587284824

My personal recipe is: add “potential criminal” to any human entity mentioned in a formula. Thus, “I have nothing to hide from the FBI” should be more correctly formulated as “I have nothing to hide from potential criminals working in the FBI”.

Then shouldn't this be "I (a potential criminal) have nothing to hide from potential criminals working in the FBI”.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#178

Post by midasuni »

fsckboy wrote: post #99
kypro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with this. I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide". I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care abou…

> I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. the guy publically posted a racist comment in the UK where there is not an unlimited right of free speech and anti-social behavior is regulated. I don't see the privacy concern. I prefer an unlimited right of free spee…

Where does have an unlimited right of free speech?

Because once you start threatening politicians in the US see how far it gets you. Post a picture of yourself with an AR15 and a comment of “looking for Biden” and see how well that first amendment works.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#179

Post by rightbyte »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #160
kypro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree with this. I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide". I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care abou…

For context, I'm generally sympathetic to the "I've got nothing to hide" people I find your example illustrates the point . The UK has insane libel laws The sane solution would be to address these laws, not to create mechanisms for people to arbitrarily evade laws A lot of pro privacy arguments seem to boil down to "well we should make it a bit easier for people to break the law, cus maybe the laws are just bad". Thi…

> The UK has insane libel laws

It is somewhat strange since the tabloids are extremely toxic and spam gossip.

Re: ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy (2007)

#180

Post by dfawcus »

miracle2k wrote: post #163
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that in the simplest way this is true, and I am sure it is very clever, poetic and pithy. But this is not how it works in principle or in practice in the UK. The police work on behalf of the people, not the government. When government manages to suborn the police in even a small way it is very much noticed. It’s difficult for people outside the UK to see this, I suppose, but our experience with this is t…

I like that officers in the UK are unarmed. I'm sure there are other distinct differences in how the UK does policing from other countries that are worth pointing out that make a meaningful difference. But every democratic country is operating on the principal that the police work on behalf of the people, and has mechanisms in place that are supposed to ensure that this is the case. The government works on behalf of…

They are not "unarmed", it is just that they do not generally carry firearms[1].

If we were to try walking around with batons, truncheons, handcuffs as they do, we'd be arrested for carrying offensive weapons.

[1] Some routinely carry Tasers, which are counted as "firearms" here.

Post reply on HN