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

221–230 of 321 posts

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

#221

Post by vacri »

MCRed wrote: post #15
MCRed wrote: post #4

GAYS ==== In the time after WWI, Germany was a relatively liberal country in some respects. The salon society was popular in Berlin and Gays and Lesbians were able to live their lives in relative freedom- not the freedom we have now in the USA, but not the level of persecution they would experience elsewhere. There were magazines that catered specifically to this population as well as private clubs for them to congre…

This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunit…

> as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking

I love this sort of "If I lose, I called it, so I'm actually right!" hedging.

The implication is, of course, that rather than you perhaps being wrong, that your unpopular opinion is actually 'critical thinking' and your opponents are all incapable of it.

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

#222

Post by vacri »

MCRed wrote: post #4

GAYS ==== In the time after WWI, Germany was a relatively liberal country in some respects. The salon society was popular in Berlin and Gays and Lesbians were able to live their lives in relative freedom- not the freedom we have now in the USA, but not the level of persecution they would experience elsewhere. There were magazines that catered specifically to this population as well as private clubs for them to congre…

It's really weird to see a suggestion that the solution to Muslim persecution in the US is for them to take up arms and be seen to be doing so. I can't see how that is going to help their current social situation.

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

#223

Post by pdkl95 »

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…

https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...

It's not a popular topic here on HN, but I strongly recommend Aral Balkan's talk about the actual business of Google, Facebook, and far too much of silicon valley.

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

#224

Post by foldr »

67726e wrote: post #173
lern_too_spel wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing like that has ever happened to me. In fact, I have never been in a situation where I would have been better off with a gun on me. Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often.

Funny part was, I didn't even own a gun for the break in or when I found the dude breaking into my neighbors house. In fact, I was lucky enough that there happened to be a cop driving by right as I ran out the door to try to grab his plate number. In the case of the carjacking, that happened to my boss when he pulled over to render assistance to a man who crashed his motorcycle. Him just trying to be a good Samaritan…

Given that your HN posting history mostly consists of you saying how you really want to join the army and kill people, can you honestly say that self defense was your primary motivation for buying a gun? It sounds to me like you want to use it.

Your stories don't really support your position because everyone involved is still alive. If you'd had a gun, then at least one person could very well be dead as a result of committing a not particularly serious crime.

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

#225

Post by isaacremuant »

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…

Well... Not everyone thinks like you. Some people feel safer being able to defend themselves if need be. The possession, even if it's never used is tranquilizing. It's clear enough that the police and security systems are not perfect and won't always have your back.

Also, entertainment purposes.

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

#226

Post by isaacremuant »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #104
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…

Nothing like that has ever happened to me. In fact, I have never been in a situation where I would have been better off with a gun on me. Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often.

This is a fallacy. You're anecdotal evidence and generalizing gun-owners' experiences.

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

#227

Post by isaacremuant »

twoodfin wrote: post #135

And if you’re not content with living in a world where all of that data is public then you’d better stop repeating that silly mantra ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to fear’... Serious question: Who's making this argument? I don't hear it articulated by anyone, frankly. I'm sure there are people who hold this position and have argued for it, but are any of them in a position to make policy? Hav…

As an exercise. Talk to non-tech people. Listen to politicians on the matter (not those advocating for privacy, of course, those who talk about stopping terrorism and the war on drugs, hackers, etc).

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

#228

Post by refurb »

matroosberg wrote: post #209
refurb wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your New Scientist article is laughable.... So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. This study only looked at one side of the equation of people who carry guns, the ones who got shot. What about all the people who carr…

No, it did not just look at one side of the equation. "We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables." How does this only look at people carrying a gun?

Oh where to start?

"Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both."[1]

[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/ [2]http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-skydivers-would-be-bet... [3]http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-...

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

#229

Post by yummyfajitas »

matroosberg wrote: post #210
yummyfajitas wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly a 5'1", 105lb woman has no need of a gun when a 6'4", 240lb man breaks into her home.

How is that clear? Where is the data that backs up your claim? The studies cited in http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a... certainly point the other direction.

The article you cite discusses intimate partner violence and seems to suggest that abusive households which have a gun present may result in the gun being used against the woman. If you read my comment, I was discussing attacks by strangers.

Here is an article, for example, that suggests violent resistance (ideally with a gun) is the best way to avoid property loss and injury when attacked. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004....

Are you seriously asserting that a small female under attack by a large male is better off unarmed?

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

#230

Post by partisan »

baddox wrote: post #166
partisan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. They can't, at least not as plainly as stated here. The wars being fought today are asymmetrical and, in many cases, ideological. You can take out a pocket of resistance here or there, but there are no huge battles like in a war between two nations. Victories are small, cost more, are not decisive, but are guaranteed due to the overwhelming strength of the weapons. 2. More importantly: they don't want to. long dra…

> The wars being fought today are asymmetrical and, in many cases, ideological. Yep, and an attempted takeover in the USA would also be asymmetrical and ideological.

People will beg the government to come in and save them from themselves.

So the question, I suppose, is what could trigger the actual occupation? My guess is that it will be austerity measures that will come through widespread municipal bankruptcies. Pensions and disability checks will stop coming. Services will stop being provided.

There is a whole section of the population that subsists on government provided benefits. Multiple generations, below the poverty line, directed acyclical graphs of income where the last person to have worked is a generation or two ago. When that lifeline goes away, then we will see unrest. Then the government will come in and occupy, providing basics. Give us your guns and we will protect you. Take this rice and this water and go home and watch TV.

Post reply on HN