Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

Meh, I'm still waiting for an argument that is capable of convincing a larger audience. The problem with the threat imposed by privacy invasion is that it is just too hypothetical. It is near the bottom of people's problem lists, even below their "first world" problems.

View on HN

What about the argument of quoting? Say I record everything you say, for the next month. Every joke, every statement, every sarcastic jab.

Couldn't I now do a 60 minutes expose making people believe all sorts of things about you? That you're a closet <whatever people don't like>? Paint you as committing some crime that you had nothing to do with? It doesn't have to be very believable, just believable enough that people will always wonder. Humans are pattern matchers, surely if I give you pieces, you'll fill in the blanks yourself?

I mean you're basically going on the record, with the world all the time.

> Humans are pattern matchers, surely if I give you pieces, you'll fill in the blanks yourself?

Yep.

Also: if you don't talk about something that can be veeeery suspicious too.

See recent discussion about forbidden spheres[0].

Full disclosure: I mostly (>90%) trust police where I live. I mostly trust government officials. I still don't want this data in the hands of anyone because 1.) than a year ago everybody knew Turkey was a stable democracy and until the night of the invasion my country were sure Germany wouldn't invade. 2.) everybody get hacked. These databases will be stolen.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13032264

You could also do that with my public statements, so I'm not sure if your comment very well demonstrates the threat imposed by privacy invasion.

I could, but that's like you saying the concept of off the record isn't valuable, as everything you say in public is a complete representation of your beliefs, the fact that a concept as off the record exists I think implies otherwise.

People vent, people say things that are poorly thought out in frustration and other circumstances.

In the current climate of vilification, I'm not sure it's a good idea to take the worst that someone may say in a thoughtless moment and use that to label them.

And how large is the probability of this happening to random people?

Perhaps we can compare it with crime. Research has shown that crime rates are reduced not when punishment increases, but when the probability of getting caught increases.

This means (translated to our case) that you can scare people all you want with doom-scenarios, but if people perceive the probability of becoming the victim of privacy invasion is low (i.e., they see it as hypothetical), then they don't care about the issue.

What's the chance of this happening to a random person? I don't know, it depends of if someone has an axe to grind I guess.

In that sense you might be right, in terms of picking a concrete thing that has happened to a person, or someone they know to make this less abstract, this might not be the best approach.

Ask them to show you their full internet history. Ask them to give you a copy of their family's internet history, including parents, siblings and children. They aren't allowed to ask for permission.

Next time someone says they have nothing to hide, ask them for their bank code, or why they're wearing clothes.

No, those are not comparable. Next time someone says they have nothing to hide, ask them to send their bank account details and PIN, or naked photographs of themselves, to their countries law enforcement or intelligent services. The question is not do i have anything to hide from some random stranger or the general public, the question is should law enforcement and intelligence services have these rights.

The problem is: this is placing hypothetical on hypothetical.

First, the threat imposed by privacy invasion is hypothetical to most people.

And now you're asking them to hypothetically send their pictures to the government?

Come on, if we want to raise awareness, we need better arguments, and especially better formulations to convince people.

It appears hypothetical. We need to educate people such that they understand why it is not. It's the only solution.

The apparatus of surveillance feeds corruption, it's not hypothetical that is what actually happens. Journalist trying to find sources on corrupt politicians, judges, police officers, businessmen etc would never find them because potential whistle-blowers stay mute.

Hypothetical? Ad agencies are already using everything known about you. Maybe you don't care about that, but it's very real.

You misread my comment: the threat is hypothetical, not the privacy invasion :)

You possibly misread mine: invasion of privacy is a threat, in that it is likely to cause damage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com