Hacker News Reader

Comment by Proleps | Hacker News Reader

Weird thing is, nobody seems to care. I care, it's one of the reasons I will keep voting for the pirate party.

Same here, and it confuses the hell out of me. Everytime i tell someone about yet-another-privacy-issue, and each time they answer "well, i have nothing to hide".

You should show them this snippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7HQ_zbdIw#t=8m00s

But yeah, until they see negative results, I doubt majority is going to start caring.

Thank you. This is an argument that I've made after much frustration and many other points. It never occurred to me to make it the center of my argument. You have no idea how glad I am to have seen this.

I think the standard counterargument is started by asking them if they have any curtains or blinds and if so, why?

[or you can ask them if they'd be willing to have a streaming camera installed in their bedroom]

People who argue very strongly against government intrusion often seem to ignore the distinction between private and public spaces. I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces. Anywhere that a policeman could stand and watch; I see a camera as an efficient aid. I won't let a policeman into my house unless they have a warrant - and not because I have anything to hide, but because upholding the principle is important.

Then surely those cameras should be available to the public as well. If anywhere a policeman can stand also counts as anywhere anyone can stand, and if it's a public space as you say, then the people have just as much right to see what's going on as the police. Public is public, right?

Is that not already the case with, for instance, police dash cams? Can't those be requested via the FOIA? (Except when the department decides the footage is "missing"/"corrupted"/"accidentally deleted"/etc., of course)

There is a distinction between public and private places, but there are also grades of privacy. If I am in my own home, I expect that no one will be watching me. If I am on a podium in front of a crowd, I expect that everyone will be watching me. If I am walking in a public area, I expect that only people who know me will notice me. It is that last expectation that omnipresent cameras shatter.

The difference between a person and a camera is that people get tired, miss things, have to eat, and cost a lot more money to maintain. For this reason, people are deployed only where necessary, while cameras can be deployed much more widely. It is the weighing of cost associated with sending a person that used to protect privacy in public places, but with electronic surveillance we lose that cost consideration as a check against surveillance.

"I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces."

I do, because it increases the power of an already too-powerful police force. America is the world leader in throwing people in prison, we really do not need to give the police any more tools.

That counterargument doesn't work in the Netherlands: http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-c...

You're trying to prove a point by giving a single example. Those pictures on that website are expensive houses in Amsterdam where people like to show off their wealth in a "non-intrusive" way. Once you get into sub-urbal and rural areas, you won't find a house without curtains. At least in the whole 10 blocks around me, I haven't seen a single house without blinds or curtains.

Someone I don't know listening to my phone conversation? Who cares. My neighbor seeing me naked? Now I care.

That's the answer you'd get.

Actually, in western Europe I'd expect the exact opposite reaction.

Perhaps what they really mean is, "I have nothing to lose".?

If you have nothing to lose, then you only have information to gain by invading others' privacy.

To which you respond, "Then why do you have your curtains drawn?" Most people parrot the "I have nothing to hide" line without realizing that they actually do want some measure of privacy.

You can also put it in terms of hackers: maybe they have nothing to hide from the government, but what about from hackers? People seem to be more concerned about that sort of thing. The same technologies that would thwart the NSA also happen to be good at thwarting other attackers.

I think people did care but we see these stories so regularly now, even though I know it's a bad thing, I find it hard to care.

Second, they get in the news once, minor uproar (particularly on the internet), then... nothing. Maybe in cases like the The Pirate Bay blockade, which gets through to certain news sites from time to time whenever they get a new domain name or host, where they remind the audience that for that single web page, ISP's have been made to censor it by court order (and need to update their blocked domain names / IP addresses)

and this is why media conglomeration is a bad thing.

>... I find it hard to care.

A name defines, your name and your privacy; defines you exclusive of everything and everybody else. Without privacy, arguably you do not exist.

Vote: Pi Rate Party International(PRPI) ...Krypto-Anarchic-Socialists?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com