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

201–210 of 293 posts

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

#201

Post by godelski »

dspillett wrote: post #185
godelski wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I've got nothing to hide" Are you: Jewish? Trans? Gay? A woman? Pregnant? Black? Brown? A furry? Muslim? Christian? Rich? Poor? Need I go on? All these groups have at one time or another (including now) needed to hide. This is a forum full of techies, and I'm sure lots of people don't want to tell everyone they are a techie right away (remember when you'd get punched if you wore Google Glasses?), or talk about the…

It isn't just the visibility side of privacy, it is the latent risk of all the stored information that is being tracked and analysed because many of the organisations stalking you through your life are not terribly good at keeping that information secure and some of them are actively selling it around to any bidder. Even if you think that you have nothing specific to hide, identity fruad can be a signifiant risk fact…

Of course. There is a difference between being Jewish and pooping. You don't hide your browsing history to prevent people from knowing you're black.

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

#202

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

sjducb wrote: post #149
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t suggest any such thing, did I? I am just observing that the scope of GCHQ’s abilities are obviously limited compared to the NSA (unless they have the most cost-efficient IT infrastructure in the world, and we don’t do cost-efficient government IT here even now). The budget just isn’t there for them to operate the way the NSA does.

The thing you’re missing is that GCHQ spies on Americans (Foreigners from the UK perspective) using the NSA’s money, then it shares the findings from the spying with the NSA under an intelligence sharing agreement. GCHQ is mostly an outsourced wing of the NSA.

> GCHQ is mostly an outsourced wing of the NSA.

Quite untrue but it does fit the default HN pattern of assumption about the UK.

American exceptionalism is a hell of a drug.

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

#203

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

belter wrote: post #182
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren’t. British police, significantly, police by consent, are operationally independent of HM government, and cannot (currently) prosecute without the aid of the (equally independent) CPS. In England there isn’t even one single police force, and unlike the FBI, no normal part of the police is a part of a government department. (MoD Police are, I guess, but their remit is military policing). I was responding…

> "...Their surveillance operation surely operates far less less broadly than that of the NSA, which has far less oversight." "The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, however, ruled on 30 January 2023 that MI5 broke key legal safeguards by unlawfully retaining and using individuals’ private data gathered via covert bulk surveillance." - https://www.computerweekly.com/news/365529894/MI5-unlawfully... . "MI5 spy who fantasi…

Do these address my point? They don’t.

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

#204

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

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…

> 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.

Not really. The specific culture of “policing by consent” that is foundational to policing (one of the Peel principles) is still really strongly defended as a matter of policing identity here (as it is in Canada and to a lesser but still noticeable extent Australia). The US police kits itself out with secondhand military equipment from the armed forces. I suspect in some situations this makes them a more effective law enforcement machine but tooling up with military equipment suggests a significant break from Peel principles.

> What does this mean? That they are personally vindictive? That acting legally but in a way that is annoying to an officer should get me arrested?

It means that the situations where our police overreact are the situations where they are outnumbered and in confrontation (riots etc.). It means the opposite of them being personally vindictive (though some are and they are depressingly hard to fire)

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

#205

Post by sdfghswe »

b112 wrote: post #198
sdfghswe wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of language > what words are ok this week? This kind of language takes any presumption of good faith on your part. You cannot possibly believe that these kind of changes happen on a weekly basis, and yet you imply it in making your argument.

An impressive, well thought out response. "Thank you"

No one will ever give you a well throughout out response after "which words are ok this week". Good luck.

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

#206

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

belter wrote: post #186
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…

"More than 1,500 UK police officers accused of violence against women in six months" - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/14/more-than-15... "Police ‘warrior culture’ makes US-style police brutality a UK problem too" - https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/police-warrior-cultur...

Again with your links. Is it performance art? Are you an AI aggregator?

(The violence against women thing is serious but it’s not a question of law enforcement behaviour or brutality. That is about the international problem of police being hard to fire when they are awful individuals in private; it’s an ongoing problem that is being addressed here through campaigns, and I am afraid I do not remotely believe that domestic and sexual violence is less of a problem in the USA. Canada takes this more seriously)

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

#207

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

prox wrote: post #154
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…

Curious: then how did the mechanism work of the Redditor that got arrested in the parent comment?

I am assuming it is just a random police officer reading Reddit on a personal basis and deciding to act on evidence of a crime (either because they are the local force or by passing it on). Police aren’t ever really off duty in this sense.

Why assume a surveillance mechanism when police are individuals who also use the more popular sites?

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

#208

Post by b112 »

sdfghswe wrote: post #205
b112 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An impressive, well thought out response. "Thank you"

No one will ever give you a well throughout out response after "which words are ok this week". Good luck.

And therefore, those that agree with the concepts I espoused, will look on and rejoice, those that disagree see one sentence, and give up.

I have been complimented.

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

#209

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

sdfghswe wrote: post #172
bemusedthrow75 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is pure ad hominem and not remotely responding to anything I actually said, but whatever.

I was politely asked a question, I politely gave an answer and set some context. You’re just being rude.

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

#210

Post by danShumway »

Zetice wrote: post #124
mptest wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"anything [harmful] could be illegal!" isn't backed by anything real or lasting Are you serious? that's a pretty ahistoric view... Being jewish was illegal, being a free black person was illegal, shit, woman having freedom of medical procedure is illegal in some states today! how on earth can you earnestly suggest things won't be made illegal that will harm people

Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.

> we self correct

And that usually happens quickly and with zero casualties? I'm sure that Alan Touring would be thrilled to learn that years later his nation has stopped castrating gay people.

Progress also isn't linear, backlash over transgender identity has gotten worse recently. People are being prosecuted over abortions that would have been legal a year ago. None of the people who are in those positions are going to be comforted by knowing that eventually someday other people won't be attacked for the same reasons.

Self correction protects the future; privacy protects the present. They're not interchangeable.

Post reply on HN