Where “nothing to hide” fails as logic
zephoria.org
zephoria.org
The gist of the paper is that the easy answers already concede too much; they admit a very narrow definition of privacy. Namely, that privacy is the right of seclusion. Instead, he advances a broader conception of privacy (from his longer Taxonomy of Privacy) and identifies societal goods from privacy.
Hemorrhoids Herpes Depression I like to pick my nose I have a sort bit on my cock I don't wash much I hate pensioners/seniors I hate work I like Justin Beiber I hate my boss I hate my wife I hate my kids I think all policemen have issues I don't like how Jews mix race, religion, and politics I'm irrationally scared of black people
Enough?
Now, if all or some of that were true, none of it is illegal, I would keep quite and always act appropriately despite my possible opinions, but like hell would I want people close to me or people I work with knowing any of that, let alone the government.
I have plenty to hide, maybe the above, maybe not. So, yeah, I have plenty to worry about.
Any one else?
The most vanilla, non-controversial, fact, like that your favourite colour is blue, is no business of those you don't choose.
Privacy should be the default expectation, not something granted to you as a reward for convincing emotional pleading.
But if everyone's secrets are unveiled, everyone benefit's. (e.g. you might learn that your wife hates you too, and that everyone likes to pick a nose:)
The problem isn't that people loose their privacy, the problem is that government get's to keep it's privacy, and government shouldn't have any privacy in the first place!
I may be misinterpreting you, but I don't believe this is true. It only works if you find out other's have a similar or compatible secret.
If everyone found out you pick your nose and eat it, but no one else does it, how does that benefit the nose picker?
If bob finds out his boss hates him, and his boss finds out that he has racist tendencies, how does that benefit bob?
In the second case openness might be the first step to a better relationship between both.
People love to politick. People love to gossip. People love to single out those that are different. People love to be busbodies in other peoples' business.
Are you black? Are you slightly too white? Are you female/ Are you male, over the age of 19 and don't have a girlfriend yet? Do you not get up before 10AM? Do you work odd hours? Do stay up late at night? Do you like "those" kinds of movies that aren't our kind of movies? Do you prefer to sit quietly and read books? Do you not like killing small furry animals just because...? Do you prefer playing with computers? Are you fat? Are you not pretty? Aren't you cool? Do you not like the manly, healthy pursuits like hunting, team sports (but only the ones we play) and fishing? Do you drive the wrong kind of car? Do you eat the wrong kind of food? Is your hair not quite the right length?
People that say they have nothing to hide never grew up being persecuted for things that were perceived as different. There is a reason that in Amish communities shunning is an effective punishment.
Beware not of the dictators of this world. Be afraid of the little Hitlers instead for the world is full of them.
Until the government decides you are inconvenient and "leaks" embarrassing data to the press.
Or, alternatively, how long before a socially conservative Congress decides parents/friends/potential employers have a right to know if someone is engaged in un-Christian behavior? The fear alone could make a more moral world (and depending on your level of crazy, help cut the deficit as we won't have to pay to clean up after natural disasters, God's punishment for immorality). We could end homosexuality, abortion, pornography, sexting, and atheism by ensuring their practitioners are too afraid to communicate. Texting and the internet paved the way for the moral decline of America, and this lazy, entitled generation is running amuck with no fear of God. We can fix that! We could even publish a registry of romantic relationships which don't lead to marriages. A list of who's had an abortion (horray for electronic health records!). Parents could retain control of their children through college and early adulthood by threatening to cut them off if electronic communications reveal undesirable behavior. You could have tax incentives for businesses that hire straight, monogamous churchgoers (geofencing) who don't watch porn.
None of this would run afoul of the Constitution, as there is no restriction of speech or religious freedom, just the sharing of third party business records.
Or, alternatively, how long before a liberal Congress decides people have a right to know if politicians and employers make racist remarks by text message or post pseudonymously on neo-Nazi forums? Which lobbyists call them, how often, and for how long? If the children of anti-gay rights campaigners are secretly gay? You could surveil private businesses to make sure they're paying their workers equally, and not talking about trying to cheat safety or monopoly regulations. Imagine an inside look at the discussions behind every hiring decision!
Yeah, it's a little farfetched. But we seem to be okay with intercepting this data and using it in our collective interests. So far, that's just security, and my objections aren't terribly strong. But I encourage everyone to look at the incredible power of rural America in Congress (see corn subsidies) and think hard about what else the Values Voters and Focus on the Family might get written into law as our best interests.
- Slochower v. Board of Education - 350 U.S. 551 (1956) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/350/551/case.html
"we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth."
- Ohio v. Reiner - 532 U.S. 17 (2001) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/17/case.html
This is why "nothing to hide" fails as logic. Even the innocent can be misrepresented or misunderstood in ways that appear criminal.
"I have nothing illegal to hide" is what they really meant to say. But laws change and what was illegal today could be legal tomorrow and vice versa.
You can also view this as a variation of schrodinger cat, in that your data is inside a box and the question is are you a terroist with the answear being you are both a terroist and not a terroist until that box is opened. With that the NSA or whoever will not know if you are or not until they look.
Tough issue and one that is about as easily answered as knowing the life signs of a cat in a box without opening or interacting with the box.
People are used to live in a society where people hide what's not socially accepted, as well as their "problems". After a while, people tend to intuitively think that these "problems" don't exist, and become much more judgemental when they witness an instance of them. This reinforce these social stigmas and people do more and more to hide everything that could be used against them. This is a problem on its own, artificially created by the society we live in.
Ideally, we would become more and more open, up until a point where we don't have anything to hide. Protecting privacy for the sake of privacy is foolish. Privacy is only necessary as long as we decide to remain close-minded and blind to reality.
Meh... that's really stretching for an analogy.
It's hard to say anything to that since they are only making a decision for themselves; they have every right to.
What I would like to say, if I can afford to alienate them, is something like: "Well, thanks. Thanks for making it harder to speak out or be different. Thanks for making surveillance OK. Thanks for making it OK for employers to ask for my passwords... Thanks." facepalm (I try to tone it down, but sheesh.)
RMS's personal FAQ touches on this regarding Facebook, using the name victim-coperpetrators: http://www.stallman.org/rms-lifestyle.html
The arguments about sharing your email/going naked are missing the point - you may have plenty to hide from your neighbours, but given a level of trust in the government you might be ok with them collecting data that might help thwart terrorist plots. I don't personally think that level of trust is reasonable, at least over the next 40 years, but my conservative friends certainly do.
IIRC, there's supposed to be a good counter-argument to "nothing to hide" that involves something about privacy being an integral component of maintaining the power balance in a society (ostensibly-)organized around individual freedoms and protections/checks against its government and inevitable government bullying.
I just can't seem to find any recent evidence of people remembering this from the recent articles/comments/etc.
I accept that things that I share on the cloud/with big tech companies are probably accessible by someone. I don't have any guarantee that the top people at Google/Yahoo aren't looking through my stuff--they certainly have the ability to do so.
As long as you're storing your data in a service like this, someone will have access, probably multiple people. This new PRISM stuff just tells me that a few more people have access, it doesn't really change much for me.
If you are concerned about this type of privacy I'd suggest living like Stallman then. It's not as if you don't have methods to keeping your data private.
Some day you may regret that sentiment.
> If you are concerned about this type of privacy I'd suggest living like Stallman then.
No. I shouldn't have to completely disconnect in order to be safe from government spying.
I'm a private citizen and they are public servants: get that through your head.
I have trust that they are indeed public servants, apparently a lot more than people here. I don't see them going after the every day person with the data they have. For that to happen a lot more bad laws would have to be passed.
You're not making the connection. These people have access to everything without supervision and want to completely destroy online privacy. It only takes one corrupt person to abuse the system and use that information against you. Why, just by going online I can gather about you that-
- Your name is Ryan Cheu and you study Computer Science at MIT (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4735907)
- I have your photo and work history (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ryan-cheu/13/95a/b69)
- You are a Christian and very vocal about it (http://en.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/m30cy/to_ratheism_fr...)
- You are attracted to Asian women (http://en.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/j3ogo/girlfriend_l...)
- You play a ton of Starcraft and even run a team at MIT where you can be reached at starleague-officers@mit.edu (http://en.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/11iwc5/recruiting_...)
- You didn't want your Reddit account to be linked to your Github but it was easy enough to find: https://github.com/ryancheu (http://en.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/1679go/new_red...)
This is just the information I had access to from a basic search. Imagine what they have.
So, does any of this bother or scare you? Could any of this information be taken out of context and used against you? Are you getting the picture now?
I'll also note that it doesn't take just 1 person to go corrupt, it also takes laws to change to let them act on that info and a court system that sides with them.
> Because people will have access to it someway or another if you have it online like that. That's my whole point.
Yes, the shit you post in public online, not the private (PMs, email, phone calls, logs of your activities, etc). It's private and none of their business. That's my point.
We're not just talking about public posts on reddit profiles here.
When I googled to see if anybody else had made that connection, my main find was a DOD paper from 2004.
Will this happen to you? Maybe, maybe not. Unless you can foretell the future, the only safe way to go is to assume that it will.
Also I'd like your significant other's mobile number. I'd like to see if I can get a topless pic.
Everyone has something to hide.
What you say isn't something to hide, it's information you can use against me if you are able to hide how did you use it.
But if i can know who tries to access my account anytime, i don't need that password in the first place! Try doing something fishy, and i'll track you down:)
Everyone on the internet has something to hide, and that's their passwords. The problem with the "use normal information for blackmail" case is that its very difficult for the public to understand.
They often have never been bullied, and don't have the imagination where they can see a point where normal conversations can be used against them.
The bank account argument is far easier to explain and grasp