Why bother with privacy when I have nothing to hide? (2023) | Hacker News Reader

Why bother with privacy when I have nothing to hide? (2023)

hannahonprivacy.substack.com

56 pointsmooreds60 comments

Women didn't think they needed to hide their periods from the government. Until the rules changed and suddenly period tracking apps become a vector for lawsuits against women.

You don't always know what you're doing now that seems perfectly normal that will suddenly be used against you in the future. Or which data will mark you as a target.

> a vector for lawsuits against women.

I'd say they turned a health app into a vector of attacks against fundamental freedoms.

> vector for lawsuits against women

What's this referring to?

Texas' crazy abortion law, most likely.

The legislature tried to pretend they weren't criminalizing abortion, by declaring that totally uninvolved randos can sue anybody for having or somehow helping in an abortion, and take thousands from the defendant(s) as a reward.

It's crazy because the usual rule is that you can only sue for harm that happened to you, but Karen McBusybody stalking your Facebook feed wasn't hurt, she just wants to strike out at "evil harlots" while making $10,000.

Attorneys general in places like Texas can subpoena the companies for records requests, and try to deduce if any of those tracked had abortions.

This is silly. Everybody has something to hide. For example the credentials to one's bank account.

The debate is never "I have nothing to hide" vs "you have some things to hide". It's about what power the government has to spy on you, in order to protect you. A lot of people think something like this: if the government needs to look through people's stuff in order to catch terrorists, well, I myself am not a terrorist, I'm ok with that, as long as they keep me safe.

A lot of people are purists though. They say the Constitution states that the Government can spy on you only with a warrant granted by a judge based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment). There are edge cases though, and these cases were debated and will continue to be debated for as far in the future as we can foresee.

The idea that the debate is simply about "I have nothing to hide, so everyone can spy on me as they like" is a complete straw-man.

The Jews thought they had nothing to hide in 1920’s Germany. Any group you belong to can be targeted at some point. Even more so today.

Always been more concerned with data siphoning/spying on the part of Corporations. It's the most egregious and difficult to avoid.

Yeah I care a lot less about the big bad boogie man government getting my data then I do about meta or x.

Meta and x, along with other corps, have shown they'll abuse my data. The government has never willfully abused that, at least for me.

Americans are so weird about "the government" while corporations get away with much worse.

The problem is that banks do not distinguish read and write permissions. I'm absolutely happy with giving out the read permission

Would you be though? So your acquaintances can see any possibly private transactions you have? Attackers can see where you are based on transactions, or i.e., blackmail you if you're in debt?

What seems a bit silly is writing all this in response to the clickbait title, but clearly not reading the article. The title is intentionally misleading, the article argues the exact opposite, albeit as a marketing ploy for a newsletter on privacy.

Some observations I've collected on the topic:

> 'Nothing to hide' only works if the folks in power share the values of you and everyone you know entirely and always will.

* Tom Scott, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CINVwWHlzTY&t=7m40s

> And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH.

> But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.

> They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.

* http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=177832&cid=14748017

The blog is terrible. I've browsed a few articles in case the one linked was a misunderstanding, but the "whys" in the titles never get answered, and there is no information actually shared in there, only rants and general truths "advertisers use your data", with very little research into the actual data or the articles' titles themselves.

Income angle:

Because "they" turn your lack of privacy into money. You're selling yourself for free.

Economic and psychological abuse angle:

Because "they" will attack you economically by psychologically targetting you with advertising for items you don't actually need, but they will manipulate you into thinking you do.

Creepy / Icky angle:

Because "they" create an electronic copy of you with all this data. With AI and other existing / future technologies they could create a version of you to populate their metaverse.

You can't trust your government angle:

"They" sell the electronic copy of you, and this can be bought by anyone, including governments. If the government of the day (which may change - boy howdy) don't like things you say or how you conduct yourself (or re-define what fraud and corruption mean), then they can target and harass you much more specifically when armed with all this extra information that's extracted from your electronic trails.

Even if “you” are perfectly clean, there’s the angle of “what do we have to hold over other people that affect your life?”

You might be clean, but if your competitors aren’t they can be bribed/blackmailed

You might be clean, but if your regulators aren’t, they can be bribed blackmailed

You might be clean, but if your elected officials aren’t, they can be bribed blackmailed

So even if you’re clean, you’re bottom line can get hit

>You're selling yourself for free.

I get to avail myself of their product for free

Because "they" will attack you economically by psychologically targetting you with advertising for items you don't actually need, but they will manipulate you into thinking you do.

Meaningless buzzwords, nobody is being 'economically attacked'

>Because "they" create an electronic copy of you with all this data. With AI and other existing / future technologies they could create a version of you to populate their metaverse.

Slippery slope fallacy. Does not exist

>"They" sell the electronic copy of you, and this can be bought by anyone, including governments. If the government of the day (which may change - boy howdy) don't like things you say or how you conduct yourself (or re-define what fraud anbd corruption means), then they can target and harass you much more specifically when armed with all this extra information that's extracted from your electronic trails.

>Another slippery slope argument.

You have nothing to hide until somebody in power doesn't like you.

If the person in power doesn’t like you they don’t need evidence.

> If the person in power doesn’t like you they don’t need evidence.

Perhaps not.

But what they do need is a way to specifically identify those whom they wish to persecute.

> But what they do need is a way to specifically identify those whom they wish to persecute.

Which is one of the arguments for pervasive / opportunistic encryption: if only 'certain people' encipher communications, they stick out like a sore thumb. But if everything is encrypted, even 'innocuous' things, then it's harder to be targeted.

They might not know that they don't like you if they don't have the evidence yet.

That's the whole point. Don't give some future regime the ability to point at you as "the enemy within".

Then people cry that they can't do anything online. Yeah, thats kinda what it comes down to.

That is defeatist.

It makes it harder without evidence.

There are benefits to publishing certain things and hiding certain things. Even children know this (yes lying/hiding is an innate capability). The word "privacy" itself is almost as poorly defined (or overloaded terms perhaps) as "AI", yet nearly everything I see about these subjects take these terms in some absolute sense. I don't know how you can actually argue one way or another (binary!...there's actually many more than two ways to argue these topics).

If the government or anyone else has access to everything you have said, they can pick and choose what you said, even in jest, and falsely accuse you of a crime by taking your words out of context. This happened to my friend with severe consequences so I know not only is it real, but it happens all the time.

> If the government or anyone else has access to everything you have said, they can pick and choose what you said, even in jest, and falsely accuse you of a crime by taking your words out of context

This is especially true on the internet where text does not show sarcasm very well, and where millions of people congregate to be deliberately sarcastic.

The most convincing argument, IMO, is to contemplate what kind of society will likely eventually result when virtually everyone’s life, history, proclivities, whereabouts, social contacts, become largely transparent to corporations, law enforcement, government, what have you. This is not primarily about whether a given individual has critical secrets worth protecting, it’s about the power and control over society as a whole that this imparts to those collecting the data.

Well since the linked page said nothing about it, I'll bite:

Privacy is a check on tyranny and corruption. Some things you want to keep to yourself, even if they're not inherently wrong, illegal, or immoral:

1. Intimate moments with people you love. Like, with your genitals and stuff.

2. Medical conditions you have or might have, even if it's just embarrassing.

3. The company you keep, especially if they are politically active, accused of a crime, or otherwise subject to scrutiny.

4. Your political views. Always. It's your right share them or not, and with whomever you want to or not.

5. Your financial interests and possessions. Up to the extent required by law to pair your fair share of taxes, the rest is absolutely nobody's business but yours.

6. Particulars of friends, relatives, loved ones, and associates that might be used as leverage over you.

People pretend like a tyrannical--or just plain corrupt--government or government official couldn't just decide to come after you. Well I hope you don't witness a crime by said government official and want to report it or testify in court.

I hate to be dramatic but there's absolutely a reason why the witness protection program exists/existed. Because powerful people will try to fuck you over, and your privacy is the first step at stopping them.

US Federal code is so vast and convoluted that all of us are “criminals” . A Crime A Day became famous by documenting absurd Federal statutes each day. The latest one is how it’s a federal crime to sell Swiss cheese without holes.

Prosecutors merely want to close cases, and often you are not the ultimate target, you are just a stepping stone to the target.

Don’t incriminate yourself , especially not for crimes you haven’t committed. You may think you have nothing to hide, and that’s only because you don’t realize that anyone can make you a criminal with the right evidence.

You don’t know that you have nothing to hide. If someone finds a creative use for your data you are completely exposed instantly. You could be denied an insurance coverage easily based on something someone finds.

This article is ridiculous. She is advocating for privacy on instagram?

article doesn't convince you of anything

and you cannot have privacy on social media. Don't advocate for privacy if you can't even get off of instagram.

Article is from May 2023. In October 2024 they deleted their instagram account.

I get the feeling they were more likely trying to find a topic that would gain popularity than providing useful content, and after 18 months didn't get the engagement they were after. That's almost the worst-case conclusion though. I didn't spend enough time reading other content to tell.

“Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” — Edward Snowden

Lovely quote, but it is different. They share qualities but they are not identical, they might be corollaries or opposite sides of the same coin.

No different in effect or consequences maybe.

Privacy matters because sometimes bad people get hired into positions of authority where they can abuse private material that they have access to.

The clearest example is the abusive spouse who works in law enforcement and can use their access to e.g. license plate databases to spy on their partner. This is not at all far-fetched - abusive relationships are very common, to the point that many (most?) people know someone who has been in a bad situation.

It is difficult to take this person seriously regarding privacy when the call to action regarding protecting one's privacy is:

  Subscribe and stay in touch. I have the most awesome 
  community over on Instagram, and I’m really excited to have 
  a community here, too.

To be fair, she did delete her privacy instagram: https://hannahonprivacy.substack.com/p/why-i-deleted-my-priv...

> To be fair, she did delete her privacy instagram ...

For me, the lack of credibility does not reside in the existence of an Instagram account, but instead in nakedly soliciting email subscriptions in a "privacy focused" post.

YMMV.

I hear you.

But if you felt you had a privacy focused message that you wanted people to hear, is soliciting emails really that bad an idea?

What is a preferable way? Ask folks to subscribe to an RSS feed or Signal group?

> I don’t believe in all-or-nothing advice.

I suppose asking for an email address fits with her stated position.

One common reply is: then unlock your phone and let me snoop through.

I use ublock and Firefox tab containers.

I try to not leave traces.

But ultimately, I want governments to be able to spy on me, as long as a judge signed it.

There is a difference between companies collecting data for money, and the government trying to catch criminals.

That is where Snowden got things wrong.

I'm fine with data collection as long as it doesn't land in the hands of bad people or special interests.

People who claim "but government evil" are libertarians or have something against their government.

> I'm fine with data collection as long as it doesn't land in the hands of bad people or special interests.

The only way to guarantee this is to ensure that nobody can collect your data in the first place.

While the government of today might be benevolent, the government of tomorrow might not be.

> The only way to guarantee this is to ensure that nobody can collect your data in the first place.

It's possible to differentiate data collected by the government and other data collection. GDPR makes this difference easier.

> While the government of today might be benevolent, the government of tomorrow might not be.

That's either fear mongering or a slippery slope argument.

"It's said that the honest man has nothing to hide. Not true. The honest man has to hide himself, because honest men are the prime targets of those who lie."

This is in quote marks but Google did not return a result. Can you tell me who said it please?

I found it among the comments here:

> > I don’t know who said it, but this:

> “It’s said that the honest man has nothing to hide. Not true. The honest man has to hide himself, because honest men are the prime targets of those who lie.”

Regardless of source, it's spot on.

Not sure what to hide, everyone knows that's a dude.

Dissident have something to hide, persecuted people do. Wives escaping their violent cop husband do. So when we are saying "I have nothing to hide" we are essentially saying "I'm throwing all of these and more under the bus." And we hide what that says about us, from ourselves and others. I'm not saying this to point fingers, I do it myself, I'm no better.

As for that article... what?

> I am to offer a practical privacy viewpoint and tangible advice. Something you can change in 5 minutes while sitting on the couch. And I will tell you why it matters and the differences you may notice as a result of doing it.

Alright, reading on..

> Social media is a big part of privacy, but that’s not all of it. Here are some tangents I occasionally go on:

okay, I'm sure the advice will appear anyt--

> 6. Let’s do this - Subscribe and stay in touch. I have the most awesome community over on Instagram, and I’m really excited to have a community here, too.

Okay. So we're discussing the headline of an article that is 100% marketing and provides zero information or value. And the subject "privacy" is 100% political. No flags, no people telling us they're so tired of politics. How weird.

So do completely "normal" people under 2 common circumstances.

1) People regularly break laws. This can be intentionally - j-walking, downloading copyrighted material, drugs, and so on endlessly. It can also be unintentional - for instance many places have laws against using a phone while driving, which could include something as simple as answering it or looking at a notification. Then there are the zillion weird laws let alone unenforced laws which remain laws nonetheless. Give me all your information and I'll turn you into a criminal.

2) Normal today is enemy of the state tomorrow. One of the main ways the Nazi government targeted Jews was by using a public census conducted years earlier. Without that census (and novel hardware to scan it, developed by IBM) their efforts would have been far less effective. This is a really disconcerting one today as politics becomes far more divisive and radical on all sides, all paired alongside surveillance dragnets that'd make the Stasi blush.

The better question these days is why bother when it’s literally impossible.

Ofc I try but feels pretty futile with all the faang adtech bs

Those who stand to gain from the absence of privacy ("faang adtech bs") need you to think this way.

The truth is there is a ton of incremental progress that can be made to restore our privacy and yes, to some degree it starts with the rejection of existing adtech norms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com