Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by john_flintstone | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

john_flintstone

Questions for people with nothing to hide:

1. Have you ever had an abortion?

2. Have you ever cheated on your husband / wife?

3. Are you currently looking for a new job?

4. Have you ever being diagnosed with a mental illness?

5. Are you currently on anti-depressants?

6. Were you ever sexually abused as a child?

7. Have you ever fancied someone of the same sex?

8. Have you ever had sex with someone of the same sex?

9. Have you ever criticised your current employer or boss to anyone else?

10. Do you love all of your children equally?

11. Have you ever fantasized about...

12. Are you planning to get pregnant in the next two years?

13. Have you ever lied on a cv/resume?

14. Are you mean to your wife / husband on a regular or semi-regular basis?

15. Do you have trouble acquiring or maintaining an erection?

16. Are you one of those women who’ve never had an orgasm?

17. What prescription drugs are you currently taking?

18. Have you ever cut yourself?

19. Have you ever attempted suicide?

20. Have you contemplated suicide in the past 2 weeks?

21. Would you be happy with your answers to these questions being made public? Or being read by your employer, local 23 year old policeman, or nosey neighbour?

I could go on and on. None of the actions mentioned in these questions are illegal, but for many/most people, the answers would be intensely private.

View on HN

Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't. Privacy is a way of restricting the government's power over you.

Giving the government the power to read your email, tap your phone, and record your porn usage isn't bad simply because it's embarrassing. After all, the data will likely only be seen by a computer. But it gives the government enormous power to make decisions about you -- decisions about whether you may take a commercial airline flight, get a security clearance, get a job, or even be indefinitely detained -- without your knowledge or consent, and without you knowing how they make the decisions.

Recall the stories of people getting on the no-fly list with no appeals process and no way to find out what information had been used to put them there.

In short, a lack of privacy gives the government the power to be even less transparent in its decision-making, and gives it yet more power over its citizens. It's not a question of discovering your fetishes or being embarrassed, and we shouldn't act as though having nothing to hide really is an excuse.

There's a rather good paper I can recommend on the subject:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

(I've posted this several times over the past few months, so this is half self-plagiarism)

One could easily imagine a false correlative impacting your life negatively and unfairly:

If you have security clearance, the government is very interested in the private details of your life. For instancw, the assumption is people who cheat on their significant others are more likely to be a security threat for many reasons. They don't even need to prove it; just find anything from that point to call your character into question.

How would you like to have your entire life become more difficult because of a misinterpretation of correlation/causation?

> Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't. Privacy is a way of restricting the government's power over you.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I'd also point out that most people do in fact have something to hide. So not only is it wrong on principle for the government to invade your privacy - massive surveillance could end up becoming a real, practical problem for many people. Both are important.

Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't.

Of course it is. Absolutely nothing about the principle of privacy and why it matters is specific to keeping secrets from governments.

The examples you gave are just a few things that can happen when someone finds out things about you that you consider private. Many of the same consequences, and plenty of other serious/life-changing ones, could also come about because an employer or union or family member or neighbour or insurance company or lawyer knew something they shouldn't.

For someone like me, someone who has explored this area philosophically (and if you think that sounded pompous, just wait), I find arguments like, "YES YOU DO HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE" to be a) presumptive and b) not compelling. It just smacks of a lack of understanding about personal responsibility and honesty.

What I'd want, if I didn't yet think privacy was necessary, would be an argument not that privacy is itself an inherent right, but that privacy is a reaction to the flawed nature of humanity. I'd look for why privacy is necessary and not innate, because that makes more sense to me than this abstract idea of a "right to privacy".

Even your argument takes about a dozen leaps to arrive at the conclusion that without privacy, governments can be more private. What you should be talking about is not the government's ability to hide things, but the idea that any government is a flawed entity which are governed by an imperfect set of laws built to represent a cultural morality. Without privacy, you should be saying, the inherent greed and cruelty that exists within every collection of people would run rampant over minorities.

If man were capable of not harassing minorities, then privacy wouldn't be such a big deal. So no, I don't think someone like me would want to hear that privacy is a human right. Someone like me would want to hear that privacy is absolutely necessary to combat the inherent evil that comes with collecting groups of people together. It's not about hiding what you have, it's about protecting minorities from the majority. That's all.

I don't think that privacy has anything to do with government. Privacy to me at least, is the ability to filter information I present to other people or groups of people.

"But it gives the government enormous power to make decisions about you "

What the government can and can't do is limited by the rights granted to them by the constitution and other laws. They're extremely hamstrung.

I think your TSA example perfectly illustrates how the lack of privacy doesn't lead to an abuse of power; it's ironically a testament to how good our system is. To think there are people the government absolutely despises and whose lives they want to be extremely difficult and the best they can do is make them wait longer in line at the airport? That's awesome.

The real fight shouldn't be about privacy but about openness of the government and the expansion of our liberties. The real tragedy is not that these program exist but that they are trying to hide them.

(privacy isn't a liberty, because it doesn't allow you to do things. It disallows others from doing things.)

It's essential to liberty though, because the power structure uses information from the privacy invasion to get leverage on you. Stalin's quote, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" illustrates this pretty well. Note the word "find." The more data the attacker has, the more they can criminalize.

None of what you said proves it's "essential".

If you have liberty guaranteed by a legal system, then the government can't attack you.

I mean they can but they'd be violating your rights, and for the sake of this discussion we're assuming they will not do that (if you do assume they ignore laws then legislating privacy protections is meaningless)

Shouldn't the focus be on making sure the government doesn't have means to attack people? ie. That people are guaranteed rights and the power of the state is limited.

PS: Bringing up Stalin kinda makes my point. Privacy is only important in dysfunctional societies where the state is not going to abide by the laws that constrain it. No first world nation in the past 50 years has regressed to a totalitarian state.

>In short, a lack of privacy gives the government the power to be even less transparent in its decision-making,

Why does that follow? Can a government not have data about you and be transparent at the same time?

One important thing to recognize is that: "You can read my text/call logs" !== "You and the rest of the world can know everything about me"

So someone saying they "have nothing to hide" doesn't really mean they would answer all the above question publicly, but rather there is no electronic record/evidence of anything they know they want to keep private.

And, as another point of discussion, whilst the matters raised in those questions may be deeply personal for many people, frankly I wouldn't be concerned if my answers to those questions were in the public domain.

Any data can become public at some point.

Some of these questions can be guessed at by data mining from your email and social network data.

All of these can likely be found out by having access to your financial records, medical/insurance records, telephone metadata, texts, and voicemail records in addition to email and social network data.

One other important thing to recognize: many people have leaked confidential/private info, even without them realizing it.

Example: the SMS messages I send to my wife tend to contain more sensitive info than the Facebook messages I publish for the whole world to see. This is because I trust my wife and when she's the sole recipient of a message, I tend to be more honest and open-minded with her than I am with the rest of the world. Plus, she knows me well enough to interpret my thoughts into context, whereas other people can only interpret my written thoughts out of context. N.B. the recipients of a message do matter for the enclosed content ;-)

And yet another important thing to recognize: even if you know that your communications may be wire-tapped, you still feel safe because why in the world would those in power be interested about your private life?

Example: when I send an SMS message to my wife, I know that my mobile career may record every message I send. It doesn't usually bother me, since I'm not doing or thinking of illegal activities, but then again, this may be a decision that will come back haunting me (and I'll stop here since I'm trying really hard to avoid Godwin's law).

...then they say "hey, our server with all your confidential information has been cracked, and we are leaking".

Now your private info is public.

As much as it might feel nice to make suggestions such as this, it's probably worth remembering that this sort of data is probably gapped from the external network (no data flow outward).

If anybody knows (and has experience) well enough about keeping data safe (indeed through doing quite the opposite), it's these guys. Whilst it's well established that in software there's not much we can do to avoid bugs and other vulnerabilities, there's rather something to be said for practical operational security in making it almost impossible for data of this form (and especially volume) to be leaked - good luck trying to get data across an air gap or indeed something monitored physically to the extent that this all is.

(caveat: spies and other infiltrators would perhaps, in certain circumstances be in a position to leak this sort of stuff - there is only so much that can be done to avoid this, of course (oh - and also others on the inside willing to leak information))

Just because it is possible to be very safe in theory and to some extent in practice doesn't mean that so will happen ifinitely from now on. People manage the data, people manage the access to the data and most importantly people make mistakes. Given that it is possible for the data to leak, there's a small probability for it happening, and thus it will happen eventually. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. Murphy's law.

Also it's not just NSA doing this. Maybe in the US, but I assume that in Europe there are many similar centralized government databases full of information about people. And Asia.

The point is, given enough time the shit will hit the fan somewhere. No matter what. Don't try to deny this.

Oh I don't doubt that it will somewhere - this is a reminder that others aren't going to stop doing it, though and also that of all the places, the NSA seems like an unlikely source of such leaks.

Also, whilst they undoubtedly keep data around awhile, it's not kept indefinitely, surely - it has a shelf life after all. Whilst someone might get this stuff wrong in the future, again, surely that would come about most likely due to some discontinuity in this process (like if they were forced to stop awhile and then continued, losing operational details in the process).

So were the systems for managing the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. The system can be compromised, given the proper will and facilities.

Again, I don't doubt, but one has to ask whether the value of that data is in fact all that substantial to anyone of malicious intent - there would, I would think, be far, far easier ways to obtain that data and again, the volume of it here would likely preclude attempts to remove it wholesale - if someone wanted localised data, why not get it from the same (likely more vulnerable) source the NSA did?

Also once again, I would guess that those with intent to cause disruption, fear or harm (even dissent) would probably have an easier time of things a dozen other ways. In building secure systems, it's always worthwhile to gauge the value of some data to an attacker and the cost to them of obtaining it.

I used to work on anti-fraud software for SMS and we had VPN access to a lot of the installed hardware.

I'd be more worried about an employee leaking data. Most telcos have many many employees and a carefully planned leak would be difficult to detect and prevent. In one installation I was involved in, we had access to all SMS messages in the system, in realtime, before the recipients got them. It would have been pretty easy to copy them to a memory stick and then leak them sometime later.

Compartmentalisation in intelligence is rather more established and effective than in private sector companies, to the best of my knowledge, though.

> it's probably worth remembering that this sort of data is probably gapped from the external network (no data flow outward).

Lots of "probably". Indeed the whole eavesdropping story should have been secret, but it seems like it leaked from the same people that decided to protect you.

Android + TextSecure = Encrypted SMS using standard elyptic curve based public key crypto.

> One important thing to recognize is that: "You can read my text/call logs" !== "You and the rest of the world can know everything about me"

No, "having nothing to hide" means exactly that. Especially since we live in an age where everyone can google anyone.

> So someone saying they "have nothing to hide" doesn't really mean they would answer all the above question publicly, but rather there is no electronic record/evidence of anything they know they want to keep private.

"Nothing to hide" on the internet or IRL implies everything of one's private and public life, you can't change its meaning back to exclude some kind of private life (defined as what isn't electronically stored) after the facts.

"having nothing to hide" is the fallacious moral stance used by Schmidt when he says "maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".

Great list!

I tried to think of a persuasive, semi-automated way to use it and came up with this:

First, make a website where you would log in with Facebook or Google (and optionally give your Twitter handle) and then give answers to questions like the ones above. Filled-in answer forms would be stored and then (by default) accessible to the public (through a search form and a "latest" column on the front page). Include a small checkbox at the bottom to keep the filled-in form hidden from the public but available to the government upon request.

Now, when people say they "have nothing to hide" to you on-line do the following:

1. Link them to that website.

2. At this point they will most likely try to qualify their initial statement with a "from the government".

3. Bring to their attention the checkbox at the bottom.

4. "But the owner of the website might sell the data anyway!"

5. You are now at a good starting point for an in-depth conversation about privacy ("How is this different from Facebook?").

Of course, this is rather manipulative and could become obnoxiously overused, but would you rather this tool existed or not? Feel free also to suggest your improvements.

Here's a model you can work off: http://www.trialbytimeline.org.nz/

Apparently those people in the twitter feed are fine with getting registered and living under high transparency.

My suggestion would be a crowd funded campaign to doxx each one of them. Would be happy to donate a few hours of my time tracing their real names.

With some funded capital we could buy and publish for each one a personal background check sort of a personal gift to free them from the burden of anonymity.

An internet campaign by privacy advocates to shame those people who expressed an opinion. That's a great idea. You should totally do it. This won't backfire or be hypocritical in any way shape or form.

I don't understand in how far this is an act of shaming. If I walk around the pool and tell people that I like to get thrown into the pool I expect somebody to throw me into the pool.

Each of those tweets I can see says "nothing to hide from the government". You are not the government.

Secondly, the fact that you would stoop to doing exactly the sort of thing you oppose, because these people are on the other side of a debate, shows exactly the sort of thinking that creates these problems in the first place. Even if they explicitly asked for it, which they didn't, you still shouldn't do it if you believe it is a thing that shouldn't be done to people.

Even the staunchest privacy advocates don't use privacy to mean that people shouldn't be able to share their information with others, as far as I'm aware. Therefore, a privacy advocate searching for and publishing information about people who've explicitly given permission is certainly not doing anything that they believe "shouldn't be done to people".

Explain to me then what the purpose of collecting all the public data about these people and publishing it would be.

Do you really not know, or do you just act dumb?

To make people realize the possible consequences of surveillance.

One of the assumptions is that the people aren't completely aware of the extent of surveillance. They assume it's simple as "someone listening to my phone call to my mom" or something as innocent. Something like that hardly has consequences for them, but something like piblishing their private information and data surely has. If they have nothing to hide, they should be all okay with this. If they aren't however... then they should not be supporting surveillance.

What did I miss?

To make people realize the possible consequences of surveillance.

If there is a consequence of surveillance that would make these people change their mind, then publishing that information is hypocritical by somebody who thinks it is ethically wrong to expose information that a person might want to have kept secret. If there is no consequence, then the act is useless. If there is a consequence, then these people are using the precisely the mechanism that they argue is the reason we should have privacy.

I wanted the person I was replying to spell this out so I could make the point clearly using their own words, without them getting hung up over how I phrased it.

What you missed is that "nuhhuh, you do, too, here are some things you didn't think about" is not always the adequate response to "I have nothing to hide, or at least I can't think of anything". There's also the matter of public policy, accountability of government, misuse of neutral data by your adversaries, discrimination, and a whole lot more.

He/she might work for the government. Now, or in the future.

And you (and they) are assuming the government can keep private information private.

And the second part of what you said is compelling. I do wonder though whether the benefit achieved by the action stfu suggests might on balance overcome any detriment.

I do wonder though whether the benefit achieved by the action stfu suggests might on balance overcome any detriment.

Yup, and that's precisely the argument the government is making- the benefit of catching terrorists outweighs any detriment to privacy that people might have.

It's an analogy really close to "She's walking around in a slutty dress so she asked for it".

If it's not exactly that same analogy it's only off by a micron.

For that matter that is why I mentioned elsewhere that I'm less scared of the government than I am of my fellow hackers, when this is the mentality that is all too frequently employed. :-/

Not even close, they literally asked for it out loud on twitter for all the world to see.

Apparently those people in the twitter feed are fine with getting registered and living under high transparency.

I suggest the NSA to record them having sex to see how clean they are. Obviously the videos will be encryped so only intelligence agencies can watch them.

DOXX THEM IN THE NAME OF PRIVACY!

:-/

congratulations, you just stooped to the very same level of counter-productive-intelligence as those who are orchestrating the transparent monitoring of our society.

Most frightening thing is that some of these people really don't have anything to hide.

Just out of curiosity I went to the blog of one of the first mentioned twitter users (https://twitter.com/MeaniePants/status/342430468442042369 ) and found photos and stories about toilet training of her child. WTF.

>I also think it's histerical that I put a pic of Lily pooping on Facebook and it received the most likes ever. I think even more than her birth photo or Roman's homecoming pics.

Here's the thing. If it's only YOUR answers that can be made public and the entire world is expected to scrutinize them, you will want to keep it private.

But if lots of people's answers are public, you will quickly see that everyone... is just human. The things we consider private and embarrassing are absolutely common and normal. It's absolutely normal to be abnormal. It's normal to be average. It's okay to have weird fantasies, other people have weird fantasies too. Everyone takes a shit.

It's the imbalance of information release that is more upsetting.

Until a few weeks ago, my answer to all these questions would have been on the safe side (except for 11 which is very open-ended). I think, most people who say "I have nothing to hide, so why should I worry about privacy?" have a list like this one to fall back upon.

The question of whether you have anything to hide is really the same as whether you're willing to put everything that you have ever thought under legal scrutiny. It's not about being on the "correct social and legal side" in all the tame scenarios that one has dreamed up.

I think the most embarrassing question you could ask all of them is : could you give me a summary of the last three century of History ?

1. no; 2. no; 3. yes; 4. no; 5. no; 6. no; 7. no; 8. no; 9. yes;

10. yes - as far as I know, you either love someone or you don't, I don't think it comes in degrees.;

11. yes; 12. no; 13. no; 14. no;

15. yes, but [array of excuses];

16. no; 17. none;

18. Yes, but not intentionally [kitchen job for 4 years]

19. no; 20. no; 21. No, just indifferent.

Why is the policeman 23 years old? Seems like a strange number to pull out of a hat. Also I'm pretty sure lying on your CV is illegal - that would be some sort of fraud, wouldn't it?

Nah, I'd go straight for:

Please list the names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, and any private information you may have access to (SSN, credit card number, banking details) of your mother, father, brothers, sisters, children, and any other family members.

Might as well throw in all the info you have for any friends and acquaintances too.

And their private photos, too, because you don't care about hiding things that people have shared with you in confidence, right? You must not, because you said you have nothing to hide.

While I don't necessarily condone this, it is an interesting thought. Social motivation (i.e. what people think about us) is one of the most powerful motivations in the world. How would the world change if everyone knew everything? Would we be motivated to be better people?

What if everyone's credit score was public or everyone knew how much time people spent on Facebook, watching TV, or similar activities? Would we become better?

Imagine if political and business leaders were elected on such characteristics, the truth. What if everyone was known for who they really were? Would crime and corruption go down? Would there ever be another war if people understood each other better?

It'd sure make dating easier...do you really want to start a life with this person now that you know what they are? Do you want this person to be the mother/father of your children? The bar would certainly be lower, because nobody is perfect and everyone has secrets.

Would the truth be beautiful once it’s universal? People who lived lives of quiet desperation (more than we think) would find out how many other people are just like them. Would people stop being ashamed of who they are? Would rates of mental illness, suicide, and depression plummet?

Would the world be better? I assure you it'd be more compassionate. People would be less likely to judge people based on unrealistic standards while quietly ignoring their own shortcomings.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20 years we saw an 'Open' organization where people opt-in to share everything about themselves and make everything public. Maybe it'd be cathartic, maybe it wouldn't catch on, but with enough critical mass the social pressure would be interesting to see (i.e. how those running for political office are pressured to release past tax filings).

An interesting thought.

I don't have nothing to hide from the government. This doesn't mean everyone I know should know everything about me. I am just a number for people collecting information about me, whereas for YOU or anyone in my social circle, certain kind of information can change my reputation and the way I'm seen by my peers forever. Stop equating "the government is doing statistics about people and keeping that information confidential" with "everyone should know everything about anyone". If you think the problem is that the government could leak that information, anyone that is currently handling your data (e.g. Google) could.

> I don't have nothing to hide from the government.

Imagine some crazy, hard-line politicians get elected and make a law that retroactively throws to jail women who get abortions. Or homosexuals. Or maybe it's a party that decides the 1% is due for some rich-shaming, who knows. Last century it was communists, and maybe the USA will feel nostalgia for that again[1] but, who knows who will paranoia strike tomorrow? This fellow at the NSA could be a very honest person that votes, say Remocratic, and you're a Depublican senator who's had an affair, so naturally this pious person decides to blow some whistles, should this pseudo-crime go unpunished.

Not to mention bullshit non-crimes like smoking pot, drug consumption, or possession of child pornography. They get your pot dealer, now they've got you, and so the government gets to enforce a ridiculous law much more tyrannically.

> If you think the problem is that the government could leak that information, anyone that is currently handling your data (e.g. Google) could.

Not everybody is okay with Google doing that either. That's why I, as an European, support stricter, better privacy laws at the European Union level.

[1] Don't laugh, it has happened. Some months ago, many Chinese nationals were fired from the NASA HQ in Virginia, then arrested, at the request of the Virginian senator. Their crime? Being Chinese, and thus suspects of espionage. Imagine what levels of paranoia this new technology could enable, if put in the wrong hands.

> Imagine some crazy, hard-line politicians get elected and make a law that retroactively throws to jail women who get abortions. Or homosexuals. Or maybe it's a party that decides the 1% is due for some rich-shaming, who knows.

There are 2 possibilities here: 1) Democracy failed hard allowing MANY crazy people to get power without people allowing it. 2) The majority of people actually want those things and they vote for a candidate that will do them. If that's not ok for you (it isn't for me too) then you are questioning democracy itself.

Both are things that are not going to happen. If they will, I'll just leave my country of residence.

> Not to mention bullshit non-crimes like smoking pot, drug consumption, or possession of child pornography.

Dura lex sed lex. There is nothing you can do here, except for voting for candidates that promise to remove these laws. Until their election, if you think you're above a single law, then you entitle yourself to be above ANY law. If this argument was to be applied by everyone our society would descend into chaos.

The government was also keeping the existence of PRISM confidential....

One thing is leaking the fact that there is a program, another to leak all the data.

Alright. The government was also keeping confidential the videos of the Baghdad and Granai airstrikes, the diplomatic cables and the Iraq & Afghanistan War logs. Do you think they care more about protecting the privacy of your data?

Along the same lines: 1) Govt asks: Have you ever committed a crime? and waits for your response 2) Then asks: Have you ever jaywalked/gone faster than posted speed/etc? (any other "common" crime)

If you answered "no" to 1) and "yes" to 2) then, congrats! You've committed a felony (perjury) in the US. Even if you've done nothing else wrong, you can go to jail.

Also: Always take the 5th... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc (especially in light of infractions against the 4th)

speeding is a not a crime.

You can simply ask them do you go everywhere naked? If not then they have something to hide. Literally.

Clothes serve many purposes beyond hiding your body. Protection from dirt and weather conditions, social signaling, etc.

It's a hyperbole to demonstrate that hiding certain things isn't an illegal or a even bad thing. In fact I'd say its overall better for all involved.

And for the record there is always a way to do all the listed things while being completely more or less naked (transparent clothing, frequent showerings, small discreet tatto, etc).

I think you're example is a good example of how weak the arguments for privacy are. All I see are hyperbolic examples. My favorite ones are where people try to bring up how the lack of privacy lead to horrors like NAZI Germany or Iran as if the US is somehow comparable. And they say "But government can change!". Only in la-la land is the US government going to turn into Iran. No developed country in the past 50 years (even ones where privacy is not considered a god given right) has slipped back in totalitarianism.

Why would you need totalitarianism? The government which gave Turing the choice between imprisonment and hormonal treatment using injections for the crime of "indecency" wasn't totalitarian. Developed countries - and the US in particular - violate basic human rights regularly. You don't need to imagine hypothetical scenarios.

That said, I believe this is all irrelevant. Privacy is an end in itself, it doesn't need to be justified.

No, its not. Do you think we are buying any essential safety for freedom? I don't think so. They have a needle in a haystack problem with a large responsibility such knowledge holds.

If you don't think governments can't change, I'd like to hear your opinions on how we went from a authoritarian (kingdoms) to democratic governments in the first place (or vice versa). Everything changes. Even societies change on micro (companies, clubs) to macro (governments or totality of the world) level all the time as new people arrive and old people leave.

US won't turn into Iran over night, it might take decades, centuries even to change into a totalitarian regime. But first sign is trampling your constitution. I'm not saying its going there but it could be going that way.

Thanks, Spock.

It's funny—my boss has wished me luck on interviews, and people I barely know know I'm on an anti-depressant. The fact I've made an attempt on my own life is posted publicly on HN.

As far as I know, I'm also absolutely uninteresting to any 3-letter agencies. I'm still not a fan of omnipresent surveillance of my phone's activity… or any other activity, for that matter.

What does it really take to become interesting to these guys, and how might that impact my life? Is political speech critical of, say, the collection of citizens' phone metadata enough to catch their interest? Is unknowingly associating with someone they find interesting enough? Knowingly associating?

In an ideal world, if any of these things subject me to additional scrutiny, once I turned out not to be a legitimate threat, that'd be the end of it. I wouldn't even know anyone had been watching. But does it ever go further, even when it shouldn't?

How are we supposed to know when everything's done in secret?

Don't know where in the world you are, but based on the information you've posted in the first sentence, you would never be able to purchase individual health insurance in the US. That means, among other things, no leaving your employer (and employer-provided insurance) to pursue your entrepreneurial dreams, unless you want to go without insurance altogether, or get it through a spouse.

Good start to think about "nothing to hide". In addition there is no way of saying what becomes sensitive in the future and who might have access to the data. When pre-nazi germany collected religious census data it wasn't with the intention to supply the nazis with an efficient database to crack down on jews and other minorities. What can comfortably be public changes tremendously over time and who gets access to the data.

The question to ask yourself is really how much risk is tolerable that some data point will be used in the future to discriminate against you.

The other concern is the conformity this attitude breads. Do you really think everybody should refrain from testing the boundaries and adjust their actions to whatever the mainstream is? This way "nothing to hide" is an easy attitude. What kind of society actively discourages edgy thinkers and innovators and where does this lead to politically and culturally? Certainly not a place I want to be part of.

Nice, the atlantic just wrote an article along the same line. Even if you fully trust the current administration, why make yourself vulnerable to future ones ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/all-the-...

For me, this misses the point. Regardless of whether or not I have nothing to hide now, that doesn't mean I won't have anything to hide in the future. We would you give the government a permanent lease on your personal details into the indefinite future? Even if you stay exactly the same, the government can change.

According to your quiz, I have nothing to hide, but I'm still a strong privacy advocate. Privacy to me is all about context and understanding the consequences of your actions. If I run naked through Times Square, I shouldn't have any reasonable expectation of physical privacy, but if I whisper to a friend I would. Either way the important factor in both scenarios is that your expectation of privacy aligns with reality.

As for context, specifically with regards to prism, if I dial a wrong number that happens to belong to a terrorist, I may find myself guilty by association, with the burden of proof of innocence in my own hands. Quickly hanging up and dialing a similar number after might not be sufficient defense since that could be a strategy terrorists use to cover their tracks.

It could be an interesting idea for terrorists to terrorize people this way: just distribute their numbers and see Gov't do their work.

Talking about the content of what they might know is a distraction of the real problem. If there is too much power and information with one organization (the goverment in this case) bad things happen to individuals that go against these organizations.

This a problem that's not exclusive to police states, it also affect western democracies and corporations. For the US right now the individuals at stake are the ones that go against and or scare the status quo: whisteblowers, hackers, political activists, etc.

If you want a concrete example the post on HN from just a few hours ago is a great one: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7

That's far from the only reason to encourage privacy.

I don't really know how to respond to here. I believe that I see your point, but even though I wouldn't mind my answers to that questionnaire being made public, I still feel that both communal and personal interests of members of society would benefit from institutional pressure in support of privacy, and strong crypto for that matter.

Studies say that N % of people who do items X1, X2, ... Xm are very dangerous to the society. Are you saying that you don't believe in statistics?

A relevant article..has been posted earlier here ... "Why privacy matters even if you have nothing to hide?" ...http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...

Ehh... this is all relevant, but indirect. How about:

22. What is your credit card number, expiry date and security code?

And on the subject of "nothing to hide from the government": the government in United States is - still - pretty good. But the trend, the trend is a worry!

I wasn't aware that this controversy was about the government publishing citizens' most private personal secrets on the internet. You're right, this is a whole lot different!

Sure you realize that audience is way smaller then what you imply and you did answer to most of those questions to your doctor/lawyer etc.. Try to compare apples to apples

That twitter bot should mix those questions with the automatic retweets.

(and, just curious, but why does it matter if the local policeman is 23 years old? :) )

Young people tend to be less aware/accepting of morally shady things normal people do as they had less time themselves to make mistakes.

Frankly, I find that very hard to believe.

Why?

Uh well probably the majority of us would answer yes to many or some of those questions

and you know what it would show that were all the same ... HUMAN!

Nice list- I am not sure if an equivalent law exists in any other country- but in India, if you have attempted suicide (and survive),you will be arrested!

Yes. And because you know the questions to ask means you have too. And so since we both have it makes it OK.

I just realized how scary Google is.

And don't forget to attach your sex tapes if you have any.

My uncle tried this argument. I proposed that he post a photo of himself naked on his facebook wall.

Funnily, he demurred.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com