Hacker News Reader

Comment by nazgulnarsil | Hacker News Reader

bullshit. the real reason "nothing to hide" is invalid is that it refuses to recognize that we don't cede all moral responsibility to the government. thus it usually comes out of the mouth of people who do think the government should ultimately be responsible for morality. this means that all moral decisions have legal penalties. morality at the end of a gun should be reserved for things we actually agree on. things like rape, murder, theft, fraud, reckless endangerment etc.

puts on libertarian helmet:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -Rand

I guarantee that all of us are breaking laws of some sort everyday. even if it's just the speed limit.

View on HN

> bullshit. the real reason "nothing to hide" is invalid is that it refuses to recognize that we don't cede all moral responsibility to the government.

You are assuming that the only entity that has an interest in having access to 'private' data is 'the government'. Without disabusing yourself of this notion you can't really understand the article properly. In reality we all have an interest in having access to as much information about others we interact with - whether it be a business deal, a personal relationship or just being in the same physical place. As technology allows more of your personal data to be recorded and verified it would not be surprising that those who were prepared to divulge more private information would gain an advantage over those who did not. We are more likely to end up in a world where your girlfriend demands access to your lifestream than the 1984 scenario you are thinking of.

A recent example of the opposite of your thinking is police in Boston arresting people for people recording them arresting people because it 'violated their right to privacy'.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...

but there's nothing wrong with private agreements about personal data. consenting adults can draw up whatever contracts they wish. the difference is that government can write up contracts without your knowledge and then hold you to them at gunpoint.

"[...] The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. [...]"

Yes, just look at criminal-suppressing services like (inequitably-funded) public schools, emergency medical care, free kidney transplants...

P.S. I voted you up, it's a good point that you made. But your rhetoric writhes with dogma.

"Services" aren't "power". You don't have to think all government services are bad to think that we should perhaps reserve the power of the men with guns to fewer things.

Excepting, by the way, school, which is essentially mandatory. We call not attending school "truancy". It's a crime. (The word "essentially" is not extraneous. I am aware that it's not quite 100% mandatory in all places. But it's close.) That's not entirely a "service".

Try not paying for those services. You'll be a criminal, and you'll be cracked down upon. Not dogma, just a matter-of-fact statement. I'm not sure I see the point your criticism is making...?

Bankruptcy isn't criminal, it's civil. You wont go to jail for bankruptcy, at least not in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com