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

I have something to hide

ihavesomethingtohi.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: I have something to hide

#71

Post by jedmeyers »

ZoFreX wrote: post #55
rgbrgb wrote: post #46

"Would you allow a stranger to enter your home, and look around?" Yeah, that's how you make friends. Certainly not into government spying but this is a ridiculous comparison. Reminds me of those piracy ads that try to convince you not to download music by saying "you wouldn't download a car". It's like pretty different and of course I'd love to download a car. I'm down for the cause but I don't think talking to peopl…

Not really relevant but those anti-piracy ads say "You wouldn't steal a car", not download.

Then they also say something about the policeman's helmet, as far as I remember.

Re: I have something to hide

#72

Post by 6d0debc071 »

rgbrgb wrote: post #46

"Would you allow a stranger to enter your home, and look around?" Yeah, that's how you make friends. Certainly not into government spying but this is a ridiculous comparison. Reminds me of those piracy ads that try to convince you not to download music by saying "you wouldn't download a car". It's like pretty different and of course I'd love to download a car. I'm down for the cause but I don't think talking to peopl…

> Yeah, that's how you make friends.

Really? I always know someone a fair bit before they're welcome in my home. I'd invite some of my co-workers here, people I go to clubs with and the like. There are some local community projects that are effectively run from my home, since that's where we have all our meetings. But even then, the idea of picking a random stranger off the street is a bit... no.

Re: I have something to hide

#73

Post by signaler »

maxerickson wrote: post #61
signaler wrote: post #48

Could be relevant: http://blog.higg.so/2015/04/29/do-ad-blockers-and-anti-track... I wrote this in response to all the silver bullets being offered as a solution to fingerprinting. It turns out, it's a hard problem and not a quick fix. A small excerpt: "The EFF have released a tool called Panopticlick that creates a lossy hash of your browser. The idea behind the tool is to issue each user with a very unique browser…

The phrasing of Flash and JavaScript are typically disabled by users now because they can prove too invasive is awkward. I guess you must mean that is the typical motivation of people that choose to block, the problem I see is that it can be read to mean that typical users block flash/js (of course they don't).

It's a tricky one this, because on one hand it sounds like a blanket statement: that all users of a web browser disable...and on the other hand it could be entire opposite - that some users block. I don't have the numbers, so there is wiggle room for awkwardness. Please read the entire article and don't snipe out isolated sentences please.

Re: I have something to hide

#74

Post by maxerickson »

signaler wrote: post #73
maxerickson wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrasing of Flash and JavaScript are typically disabled by users now because they can prove too invasive is awkward. I guess you must mean that is the typical motivation of people that choose to block, the problem I see is that it can be read to mean that typical users block flash/js (of course they don't).

It's a tricky one this, because on one hand it sounds like a blanket statement: that all users of a web browser disable...and on the other hand it could be entire opposite - that some users block. I don't have the numbers, so there is wiggle room for awkwardness. Please read the entire article and don't snipe out isolated sentences please.

It's not even a little bit unclear, the vast majority of people don't even use adblock and the like, never mind more invasive stuff like noscript (or turning JS off entirely). They've never even heard of it.

Re: I have something to hide

#76

Post by tertius »

ndarilek wrote: post #36
juanito wrote: post #3

I really appreciate the resources provided. But I'm not a fan of the website suggesting that I want/need privacy because I have something to hide.

All of the below examples aside, why not? Why should your wanting to hide something be any more sinister than what you want for dinner? And if you yourself don't have anything to hide, awesome. Is it not worth protecting my right to hide things should I want or need to? There are many reasons to desire privacy other than wanting or needing to hide something. The existence of this site does not invalidate those. But o…

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." "Guess what, I do have things to hide, and that shouldn't get stigmatized."

The argument isn't about hiding things, it's about the right to privacy. The right exists whether you have something to hide or not or whether you like to swim or anything else that irrelevant.

And if you don't "have anything to hide" your right doesn't automagically go away.

Re: I have something to hide

#77

Post by RodgerTheGreat »

pierreozoux wrote: post #63
thejrk wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why the desktop OS matters and why they suggest using linux to thwart NSA surveillance.

Free software is the way to go :) If your software is not free, you have no guarantee of what's happening there.

If you don't actually audit the hundreds of thousands or millions of lines of code comprising an open source application stack you don't have a guarantee of what's happening either.

Bugs like Heartbleed demonstrate that massive vulnerabilities can be introduced and persist in well-regarded open-source codebases for long periods of time without detection in spite of theoretical "millions of eyes". Heartbleed was, to the best of our understanding, the result of an honest mistake. What's to say that any significant OSS codebase with thousands of committers doesn't have a substantial number of subtle and less-than-honest "mistakes" of a similar character?

Re: I have something to hide

#78

Post by tertius »

saraid216 wrote: post #56
abandonliberty wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to get comfortable with the fact that having things to hide does not make us guilty, criminal, or unethical. Whether it's dick pictures, political views, or associations with questionable NSA targeted groups like UNICEF[1]. I argue that it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/22/nsa_gchq_...

I firmly disagree. Hiding things is a hack; the actual solution is to change society such that exposure entails no significant consequences. Sure, as a band-aid to make existing real people feel secure? Hiding things and keeping them hidden is fine. It's just an indicator of how far we as a society still have to go. Do remember: "it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy" is the exact ar…

"Do remember: "it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy" is the exact argument used by the government against things like Wikileaks. The exact argument."

The government does not have the right to privacy, we do. And exercising that right is well doing something we have the right to do.

Exercising free speech is good. Don't you think?

Re: I have something to hide

#79

Post by saraid216 »

greggman wrote: post #68
saraid216 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I firmly disagree. Hiding things is a hack; the actual solution is to change society such that exposure entails no significant consequences. Sure, as a band-aid to make existing real people feel secure? Hiding things and keeping them hidden is fine. It's just an indicator of how far we as a society still have to go. Do remember: "it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy" is the exact ar…

I'm not sure I follow your logic. So are you saying if we were a further advanced society people could have sex a crowded bus or restaurant and we should just all accept it and not expect them to get some privacy? I'm not suggesting anyone should be ashamed of sex. I am suggesting that most people want that moment to be private and even those that around them want them to keep it private as well.

If you don't think that people having sex in public should be ashamed, why did you bring it up?
Post reply on HN