Live data from Hacker News

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

jacquesmattheij.com

31–40 of 321 posts

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

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men, Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you claim to oppose.

Why does persecution have to reach epic proportions before it becomes safe to acknowledge it?

Facing disadvantages and being persecuted are differences of a significant magnitude.

Besides, we're currently in the middle of several moral panics. Most of them come and go, but it feels like things are really bad when you're in the midst of them.

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

#32
post #21

I'm not sure about cause and effect with logging data and genocides. Ok it made the Nazis job easier in Holland but they killed a lot of people elsewhere. Since those times the amount of data stored on everyone had rocketed and the amount of genocide going on has plummeted - see the graph from Pinker's book - http://i.imgur.com/rFWzUOd.png

Are you kidding me? Of course, they found jews people in all the invaded countries and Germany, but they had a harder time finding jewish people. In the Netherlands, they basically knew who were jewish, and if the data had not been destroyed, 100% of the jewish people have had died because of it. Without the data, some people had the chance to escape or hide their true identify (there are plenty of jewish who could convince law officers that they were in fact not jewish). With that information, they had absolutely no chance

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

#33

"When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing to write." - Edward Snowden

Well put.

The Open Rights Group regularly do briefings on things like this and one of the "Responses you might get and how to counter them" arguments is:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

That isn’t true. Surveillance has been used against journalists, whistleblowers and human rights activists. Most of us want to keep parts of our lives private." [0]

I've had people use the naïve "nothing to fear" argument before. Tell them that even if they wrongly believe that they don't require privacy, people working in their interest do.

[0] https://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/campaign_resour...

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

#34

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, Gender, Date of birth, Location, Mobile phone number.

This is some of your most private and personal information and it's tied to your actual behaviour on the web. Google's ability to track you across the web and across devices is simply unprecedented.

Google omits basic facts in their privacy policy about the data they collect about you. Things like: how long they keep your data (presumably forever), whether the data is anonymised, whether your searches or activity are disassociated from your identity, and who sees your data inside the company.

Does Google use your mobile number solely for two-factor authentication and absolutely nothing else? Google doesn't tell you. Do they really need your date-of-birth? And is it only used for age verification? Could they simply ask if you're 16 or over? Sure they could, but date of birth tied to your online activity is so much more valuable when it comes to crunching all that big data on user behaviour.

The amount of information that Google captures about you is gargantuan. They know more about your online (and possibly offline) behaviour than you know about yourself. Just to be clear, I don't believe Google does anything nefarious with your data. But even if you trust them, why is it considered perfectly acceptable for them to track you to such a relentless degree?

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

#35

Agree 100% with the point being made here, but the two examples used are also examples of the (large) weaknesses of centralized systems, which is much more abstract, often overlooked, and can be a much greater threat to our well being. A centralized system that everyone depends on will hurt everyone when it fails. A robust, decentralized system limits this exposure.

(or implicates everyone in certain political regimes)

A plausibly deniable system is the only real answer and so far that is word of mouth.

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

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does persecution have to reach epic proportions before it becomes safe to acknowledge it?

Facing disadvantages and being persecuted are differences of a significant magnitude. Besides, we're currently in the middle of several moral panics. Most of them come and go, but it feels like things are really bad when you're in the midst of them.

>facing disadvantages v. being persecuted

Seems like a distinction stemming from perspective. Are women persecuted or do the face disadvantages in the workplace?

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

#37
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…

> there are other groups as well that are often forgotten... in fact I can only think of the Roma. Shouldn't we all know all the groups the Nazis systematically murdered?

The Jehova's Witnesses come to mind, too. This is probably not complete, but it does give an indicator at least: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Kennzeichen_f%C3%BCr_Sch...

Top row, from left to right:

"Political", "Professional Criminal", "Emigrant", "Jehovas' Witness", "Homosexual", and "Antisocial"

Left column, top to bottom:

"basic color", "badge for repeat offenders", "prisoners of the punitive regiment", "Jews".

Then there are some more badges listed, for special cases if you will :/

> That's one lesson people don't seem to learn from this era-- its the mechanism by which a peaceful, tolerant society (as germany had) becomes fascist.

Having read Sebastian Haffner's autobiographical book about the time from 1914 to 1933, I have a somewhat different picture, in which both WW1 and the inflation played a huge role in fertilizing the soil for craving adventure and outside stimuli (that craving for example expressed in the sports craze in the 20s). The Nazis didn't have to transform all of society -- they just needed enough people willing to be brutal enough on their behalf, that's what they had and that's how they took over. I would say the Nazis chiseled more than they transformed, and then the others either rationalized and became willing Nazis, or were unwillingly in their power. But by the time resistance seemed like a good idea, it was pretty much too late, people could only save their souls by standing up, or save their lives by fleeing, but not really change the course of things. When that was still possible, people just looked on and hoped for the best. Seems familiar, huh?

Maybe my impression is totally wrong, but that's my impression. Here are some quotes form said book (the English title is "Defying Hitler")

> A generation of young Germans had become accustomed to having the entire content of their lives delivered gratis, so to speak, by the public sphere, all the raw material for their deeper emotions…Now that these deliveries suddently ceased, people were left helpless, impoverished, robbed, and disappointed. They had never learned how to live from within themselves, how to make an ordinary private life great, beautiful and worth while, how to enjoy it and make it interesting. So they regarded the end of political tension and the return of private liberty not as a gift, but as a deprivation. They were bored, their minds strayed to silly thoughts, and they began to sulk.

[..]

> To be precise (the occasion demands precision, because in my opinion it provides the key to the contemporary period of history): it was not the entire generation of young Germans. Not every single individual reacted in this fashion. There were some who learned during this period, belatedly and a little clumsily, as it were, how to live. they began to enjoy their own lives, weaned themselves from the cheap intoxication of the sports of war and revolution, and started to develop their own personalities. It was at this time that, invisibly and unnoticed, the Germans divided into those who later became Nazis and those who would remain non-Nazis.

and:

> Indeed, behind these questions are some very peculiar, very revealing, mental processes and experiences, whose historical significance cannot yet be fully gauged These are what I want to write about. You cannot get to grips with them if you do not track them down to the place where they happen: the private lives, emotions, and thoughts of individual Germans…There, in private, the fight is taking place in Germany. You will search for it in vain in the political landscape, even with the most powerful telescope. Today the political struggle is expressed by the choice of what a person eats and drinks, whom he loves, what he does in his spare time, whose company he seeks, whether he smiles or frowns, what pictures he hangs on his walls. It is here that the battles of the next world war are being decided in advance. That may sound grotesque, but it is the truth.

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

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men, Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you claim to oppose.

Why does persecution have to reach epic proportions before it becomes safe to acknowledge it?

To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing different opinions to me".

Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married for example) this is not persecuting a group.

To imply so is disingenuous.

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

#39

"When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing to write." - Edward Snowden

This is the best way I'v heard anyone phrase this idea. Makes me want to watch more interviews with Snowden. Clearly, he is more than just some guy who leaked secret information. His personal take on surveilance is very interesting as well.

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

#40

"When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing to write." - Edward Snowden

This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different ideas.

First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. There is however, the Bill of Rights which everybody is familiar with. It does outline protecting specific aspects of privacy which include such things as the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the 4th Amendment, (privacy of your possessions against unlawful search and seizure).

The supreme court refuses to protect privacy beyond those issues which are directly related to the Bill of Rights even though the public believes it is their right to have a blanket type of protection against congressional overreach.

To hear Snowden confuse these things by lumping rights protected under the Constitution with a broad reaching idea of the public's right of privacy (which is does not have), and then equating them is puzzling.

Post reply on HN