This Man Has Nothing to Hide – Not Even His Email Password
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Spoken like someone blessed to have been born a white heterosexual male in 21st century America. I wonder if he'd feel the same way if he was a homosexual in an incredibly homophobic town.
He also seems to have reversed cause and effect here. Its not necessarily asymmetrical information that gives people power, but rather power that results in asymmetrical information. There's no magic switch to reveal all information in the universe, so its going to be government thats better at keeping secrets than you in a society that expects defacto transparency. Have fun trying to prosecute the government for keeping secrets when they have every detail on your life catalogued. You can't base a life philosophy around "if everyone magically did the right thing then..."
However, asymmetrical information can also directly be used to obtain Power. (The simplest example is blackmail).
Asymmetrical possession of information is power. They're not cause and effect, they are the same thing.
Remember the dude who said knowledge === power? He really meant "===", not "if A then B," and not even "==" (if you use certain dynamically typed languages).
So what this guy is really saying is that he's okay with other people having unlimited power over him, so long as everyone has similarly unlimited power over everyone else, since they'll all hopefully cancel each other out. He's not just talking about the future of privacy, he's talking about the future of power. I suppose it's going to be a rather suffocating world, but at least all the animals in the farm might finally have a chance to be equal. Gotta give him credit for coming up with one of the more imaginative ways to achieve equality.
Thanks, but I'd rather live in a world where everyone has equally limited power over everyone else.
I agree that Dyer is fortunate to be able to take such an extreme position, but I do think society would be better off if we moved toward his ideal, rather than away from it.
Lets do a thought exercise - at extremes, what would be like if every human would be connected to the thoughts of other humans? What would be like if your friends would hear every dirty thought you have about them in a moment of weakness? What would be like if your wife that's miles away would be able to feel you admiring a hot chick passing by? The outcome is simple to grasp - in order for us to survive, we'll stop being humans - feelings for one would not belong in this world, which would raise the question of why we'd want to live our miserable lives anymore?
And if you think that we should at least have privacy of our own thoughts since the line has to be drawn somewhere, then you just acknowledged the need for privacy and yes, where should the line be drawn is a very good question and the answer should be that's up to the individual, because a heterosexual white male doesn't have the same problems as a gay afro-american.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_US_Special
If you can't get hold of the episode, they essentially paint pro-homosexuality slogans on the side of their vehicles and drive through an Alabama town.
It's scary to think that even in this day and age there are people who will react in such a fashion. And if you think this is bad, driving through the town... imagine living there as a gay man.
PS: I'm aware that Top Gear is an entertainment show and not everything may be exactly as it appears, but I believe this was legit in this case.
FTFY
I'm not trying to be rude or spoil your Weltanschauung or something.
http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2009/10/05/richard-the...
They seem to be pretty serious when claiming that it wasn't fake. They've admitted in the past when their sketches are faked, with absolutely no qualms about it. It seems odd that they would specifically claim that this one was definitely not fake.
I don't doubt that they dramatised the footage to make it seem like it was a lot more scary than perhaps the actual events were. But that doesn't mean the events didn't happen.
Anyway, judging by the responses, I can see this is a bit of a touchy subject so I'm going to take a pass on this thread from now on. No judgement on right/wrong, just going to bed ;)
Stop trying to feel smug because you just one-upped all those people without any proof (or accuracy) whatsoever; it just makes you look stupid.
edit: found the clip: http://youtu.be/pKcJ-0bAHB4?t=6m
The ones that I remember:
* I'm Bi
* Man Love Rules OK
* Hilary For President
* NASCAR Sucks
* Country and Western Is Rubbish
Also, yes, they actually did have to stop and remove the slogans, which was not faked (not the lack of actual camera use, just a phone video).
The author, perhaps, isn't bothered by the many reasons why other people unlike himself want privacy and have wanted privacy throughout history. Maybe the plight of others will never be good enough for him to change his advocacy. There's irony in his case. Not so long ago, and to this day in many parts of the world, revealing oneself as an atheist would have made one subject to extreme persecution, if not quicker death. It was through a long course of secrecy, over a gradual shift in public perception, which was rapidly accelerated by the soft veil of the internet, that more people began to feel safe enough to 'come out' as atheists. (Granted, that history didn't have a complete lack of privacy. Yet, if it had, I'd wager that the world today would have even fewer "heretics" upon whose shoulders others may rest their unpopular thoughts.)
Transparency should be a growing expectation people have toward all governments and institutions that wage force over people. I agree with that part.
Can you imagine being this guy's child and reading him talk about how "Yeah, maybe if people were watching me then I would have tried harder to spend time with my kids last summer". It's not that he wants to spend time with them, he's just worried about how it looks to other people.
The truth hurts, but that doesn't mean that the truth is an excuse to be hurtful. This project seems pretty gross; he gets some respect for taking a position and committing to it, but it's not really kind or respectful or fair to anybody he interacts with to commit them to the same position indirectly.
So, is that some kind of loophole? How does he justify that in his twisted logic? Everyone else knows, so it's okay?
That just about sums up how he is able to be so flippant with his privacy, even if he has nothing to hide!
Rest of your point stands, obviously.
If, as a child, you were just dragged along to church by your parents at Christmas and Easter, then when you grow up and realise you don't believe, so stop going, that's one thing, and there's nothing really "taken up" about it.
If you were a regular adult churchgoer of your own volition, perhaps with a lay position within the church, or even part of the clergy, then apostasy, is a strong act that might be called "taking up" your later position, even if the later position is a lack of one.
Similarly, if you become a normal atheist who simply doesn't believe in any gods, then there's nothing to take up.
However, if you become an evangelical, proselytising atheist like Richard Dawkins, then you've certainly taken it up.
The burden of proof lies with the claim of existence. In the absence of any evidence, nonexistence is the default assumption. Yet disbelief in all of these things is based on evidence, since we have looked in the places people used to believe they lived and/or domains they were believed to control, andand they weren't there.
The universe either came from somewhere or has always existed... If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe" how would you prove or disprove God's existence?
...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it.
FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.
The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of God you must deny that the universe was created by something. I don't see how you can make such a claim without any evidence. Last I checked there was no scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.
It's an unnecessary complication; if calling the Big Bang or whatever might have preceded it "god" provides useful explanatory and predictive power, then such a definition might gain some traction. But as it is, the universe appears indistinguishable from a naturalistic physical process.
You can believe in a god (be a theist) and still think it's not provable that there is one (be an agnostic).
And? I don't understand why the reader must assume it would be good for people to act with complete information. Privacy is required where trust is absent because people in the abstract are not responsible or empathetic enough to warrant the risk. Ask any celebrity if privacy is a barrier to equality. This isn't pessimism either; I could see privacy not be needed but only if the protection from harm is replaced by other protections embedded in the culture or environment.
In a totally utopian sense I believe that privacy is bad. Practically it's probably impossible to implement society without privacy. I wouldn't share my email password because we're not living in a utopia and that information asymmetry would hurt me. However, if privacy went away social norms would have to change -- there would be a lot less hypocrisy -- and the things I'm keeping private right now wouldn't need to be private any longer.
Really privacy just facilitates lying.
Maybe it "facilitates lying," although I think that's a rather extremist view, but if there's information I'm not willing to provide you, I may not necessarily be lying--I just don't feel that it's pertinent or necessary for you to know. Or in particularly pathological cases, I've simply forgotten, so neither of us will be privy to information that has been lost or destroyed. It's just unfortunate that it seems in this case, "lying" has been stretched to mean "lack of information or imperfect information" rather than "a statement which is not factual truth." That's not an argument I agree with.
Likewise, I'm not so sure a privacy-less world would be, or bring about, utopia. At least, thusfar, I haven't read anything that has convinced me. Yes, I'm sure part of it is due to my own experiences in our world where privacy is a norm, but I'm not sure I completely buy into the belief that privacy facilitates all of these ills spoken about in TFA (or by yourself or other commenters). For one, there will always be actors with malevolent intentions--eliminating privacy for all individuals is unlikely to change that fact.
Groupthink also comes to mind wherein opposing opinions are punished by way of mob justice. I could foresee a world where a lack of privacy encourages homogenous public opinion, either because those who might be inclined to disagree fear embarrassment or punishment.
Ultimately, I don't think getting rid of privacy will do much to hypocrisy and lies. The sharp edge of embarrassment would be dull, allowing people to behave with less care for what others think. People would still lie and behave hypocritically but they would be better at evading. The comfort afforded by privacy would be transferred to the comfort in knowing that someone would have to sift through the information to find your lies and even if they did? Well, who doesn't lie? The less privacy politicians have the less I'm convinced privacy has an affect on lying.
I do agree though that a world constructed so that privacy isn't necessary would be a utopia and I believe it's possible to some extent.
In fact, I think your position is entirely immoral. You want to find some kind of technology to force me to give up my privacy to you, and absent such a technology, you think it is unfortunate because that would be Utopia ... That's just hard to take seriously.
I don't think it's infeasible to find a technology. I think it's infeasible to change our culture to be more accepting of the sorts of things that people choose to keep private. As long as people are persecuted for their completely normal beliefs and actions privacy has a place and keeping things private is justifiable. But if I were designing a utopia I think I'd try one with no privacy at all (everyone has access to the same set of facts about everyone / everything else) and see how things go.
Why do you think my position is immoral? How is it a flawed concept? You haven't presented a logical argument for your position -- that privacy is good. I'd love to hear one that doesn't include a clause where "some bad actor does something immoral because of lack of privacy."
Maybe P = NP, then we won't have a choice :)
Edit: spelling.
Once, in thread similar to this one, I saw another recommendation for The Light of Other Days (http://smile.amazon.com/Light-Other-Days-Arthur-Clarke-ebook.... It explores a world where everyone can see and hear everyone else at any (past and present) time. While I did not always find the plot compelling, I still enjoyed reading it because it explores some cool ideas.
But your comments are accurate. While, not always compelling, the concepts are pretty cool to indulge in.
"In most societies, we [recognize] the right of people to keep secrets. But really, there’s only one purpose for keeping secrets: secrets exist to prevent other people from acting as they would if they had complete information,"
Yeah, that's because most people cannot be completely trusted with your welfare. Der. They don't usually have your best interest at heart, even in cases where their intent is not specifically malicious.
Also:
He thinks most of us would live more ethically too.
I doubt that. They would just get better at appearing to be ethical, which really isn't the same thing.
There's a long and hard-to-kill tradition of thought, both in the West and in other cultures, that says something along the lines of "If you try hard enough to look like you care about X for a long time, you'll end up actually caring about X."
It's the idea behind every educational system that requires students to wear uniforms: "Make them dress like ladies and gentlemen for several years, and they'll actually become ladies and gentlemen." It has also been the idea behind many state religions, both ancient and modern: "Make them participate in religious rituals from birth to death, and they'll actually come to have faith in our god(s)." What's scary is that this often works. It's an extremely powerful tool of social manipulation.
That last stance gets harder if everything is in view. The first one easier. It isn't an outcome I long for.
Beside social stigma, the most important barrier to living a transparent life is our reliance on secrets for identification. That includes Social Security numbers, Credit Card numbers, bank account passwords/nips, all details about physical keys and locks, etc.
You might say that public access to the above information is only a problem in conjunction with private property rights. But even if nobody owns anything, secret/public keys are currently some of the best way to identify people and track trust/reputation/opinions. Without some kind of alternative, anybody could claim anything in my name. That's problematic.
We need a way to accurately track and identify people, without the need to rely on secrets. Beside having billions of independent cameras/trackers everywhere and cross-validate their measurements, I don't know how we're going to achieve that.
It always makes me shudder when banks or other supposedly high security institutions ask me to provide the answer to "What city were you born in?" for extra security. I don't want to have to guard that secret, because it's not. Just an example.
I feel that in a world with perfect transparency we wouldn't have to worry about things. If someone tried to impersonate you or steal your money, _they_ would get into trouble because it'd be public knowledge what they did.
It's just much easier to rely on things being okay because everyone knows everything, rather than because everyone doesn't know certain things.
Privacy/secrecy as it relates to identification or ownership is just one facet of the world. You realize people are not actually robots or play-things in a Dystopian novel right? People have complex lives, desires, strategies for achieving their goals, feelings, etc.
They remind me of what happens when people decide not to lie any more. Works great in theory until you start hurting other people.
I'm still fundamentally in favour of strong privacy laws. That some choose not to exercise their rights is their own decision to make. They are however, not entitled to make these decisions for others.
A simple example of why strong protection is needed is when you have to travel to countries that, if privacy in your own country was weak, would gain access to more information than you'd want them to.
So you're a gay atheist who likes to smoke pot from time to time? Please follow this nice man with the rifle.
Because I did not subscribe to the populist viewpoint of all that mattered was sports, sports, and more sports, getting blackout drunk on Friday and Saturday night, fishing and torturing small furry animals "just for fun" I suffered more than my fair share of persecution, beatings (lots and lots of beatings) and ostracism.
The idiots that declare "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" are privileged minority, usually white, male and middle class.
> And all the men and women merely players.
I think one benefit of privacy is the ability to maintain multiple identities. Not just "secret" identities, but also the ability to play different roles depending on the context. I'm not sure how to explain it exactly, but I feel like a loss of privacy would bestow upon me a pretty heavy cognitive burden. Even if my behavior isn't embarrassing or self-sabotaging, I have better things to do than justify my every waking moment and tailor a consistent & comprehensive identity. It would be the equivalent of spaghetti code.
And in keeping with the information asymmetry theme, I can't see how this could be feasibly implemented. If everyone agreed to an entirely transparent society, it only takes a single agent to exploit the system by keeping secrets anyway. There would have to be absurdly harsh disincentives for defecting in order to keep the system pareto optimal.
"Every one of us is entrusted with information that our family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances would rather that we kept private."
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/noahdyer/a-year-without...
Philosophically speaking, the idea of a society where every actioned is monitored, recorded and made available, is a potentially interesting thought experiment.
That said, I find it rather difficult to feel too excited, for this specific campaign.
Did his kids say that, or is he saying that for them?
"I have nothing to hide" is used as an argument meaning "I have nothing to hide for which I might be wanted by the authorities"; it does not literally mean "nothing at all".
"I have nothing to hide" is an argument used against the advocacy of tools for anonymity and cryptography, and in particular tools that use strong cryptography and are free of back doors.
The counter argument "you have your personal privacy to hide" to hide makes a strawman out of "I have nothing to hide" around the interpretation of the word "nothing".
The nothing-to-hide argument, in its strongest form, is specifically limited as an argument against the advocacy of tools that make governments nervous, not against fig leaves and coconuts. That part of it is plausible, in fact: basic privacy arguably does not need strong anonymity and crypto tools that are free of back doors.
You can be investigated by a government in ways that actually "respect" your privacy, so to speak. By this I mean that they get into into your accounts (using exploits or deliberately planted back doors), don't find what they're looking for, and then move on. Nothing private of yours has become public, and you don't even know.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this, just that you have to take the "I have nothing to hide" argument more seriously: the taunt "so open your e-mail to everyone" is not really an effective response.
Those who use the "I have nothing to hide" argument are statists and conformists; they really mean "I am willing to open all aspects of my life to the authorities in cooperation with any investigation", not "I'm willing to open my life to the public". (The tacit implication is "those who are not willing to unconditionally cooperate with the authorities to the extent that I am are not merely advocates of liberty: they likely have something to hide, whether it be links to terrorist organizations, child porn, or evidence of crime. Unlike me, the advocates of those tools and systems are not so confident that nothing will be found.")
1. So you agree with every single law there is, and every single prohibition against any activity or posession of anything?
2. Even if you don't violate any law or prohibition yourself, but your best friend or a family member is investigated for such a thing, you're willing to open up everything to help provide evidence to throw that friend under the proverbial bus, in the name of conformity to the state?
3. Are you okay with doing away with wiretap laws and search warrants?
4. Are you okay with any citizen being arrested and given "truth serum" drugs so they truthfully divulge everything they believe to be true on any topic? If they have nothing to hide, why should anyone object?
Besides the obvious flaws, shouldn't it also go the other way?
The government hides tons of things, from classified documents to internal memos. What about that?
2/ "Zero is still the amount of times I've killed someone, robbed someone, raped someone, taken illicit drugs, or even had alcohol or other substances,"
So that what being virtuous is for him, not society as a whole.
3/ "He thinks most of us would live more ethically too."
That paragraph is scary. He needs people to watch him to behave better ? While telling us that becoming a non-believer felt liberating regarding his sexuality ?
4/ Reducing privacy to a power tool for the elite is ludicrous. He confuses transparency with no privacy. He also ignores lots of things about human psychology and sociology.
5/ I was disappointed that the reporter didn't checked his Google search history.
6/ You don't need $300,000 and a crew. You only need webcams, Gopro and Google Glasses.
Privacy has a purpose, damn it!
These are extreme cases, but they still are about the privacy of people. The article mentioned good less extreme examples.
Just who you are voting for is already something you have to hide (in general). If you wouldn't have a right for secret elections you could be forced to vote for a certain candidate or your vote could be bought.
Yes, the governments keep things secret that shouldn't be secret (e.g. contracts/agreements with other countries, i.e. how the big countries fuck the little ones). There is a saying: use public data, protect private data. In German: Öffentliche Daten nützen, private Daten schützen. (it rhymes)
if there was truly no privacy, then the Mafia would cease to exist.
think this through.
How convenient for him. I'm supposed to take life lessons from some guy that put his own selfish needs above his wife's and children's just because he got bored of having sex with one person? That's sickening.
The man realised, during the course of his relationship, that he was unhappy with his life. So he made a change that made him happier. At the same time he deposits the bulk of his paycheck into his wife's account and considers it his ethical duty to see his kids three to four times a week. All things considered, the man made the change in a rather respectable manner.
The alternative is to remain in the relationship, discontent, for the rest of his life. Is that what is expected of people? In the best case, one person is miserable. In the worst case, his unhappiness manifests in the relationships with his wife and kids. It seems reasonable that he steps aside before that can happen, leaving him and his family to pursue happiness elsewhere.
I disagree with him because of his premise that complete information creates a level playing field between people. Rather, the people who fall closer to the perceived "normal" gain power over those who are closer to the tails of the bell-curve.
Yes, absolutely. I would expect no less of myself.
So without privacy politicians would work to build a Utopia or something? This is not worth the time of The Atlantic, or what I thought that institution was about. The idea that people will act more ethically because of privacy is something out of a Dystopian novel, but he actually sees this as Utopian; this makes me wonder if this is a prank.
Let us wonder, if we give up all privacy, I imagine this applies to institutions. So, when Google gives me their Secret key, or wait, no one will ever use encryption because there will be no secrets, what stops someone from firing a nuclear weapon because of course we will not have secrets like the "launch codes." I realize in such a Utopia we won't need nuclear weapons but let's Utopia will start tomorrow, before we get rid of these weapons ... What's to stop some mentally ill person from using the free knowledge to destroy the world of all new-found anti-privacy advocates?
Oh, you may say "we won't share those secrets." OK, where does this end because I don't know see how you get Utopia without everyone following this silly idea. I mean, it may come as a surprise, but humans are (relatively) intelligent self-interested agents and will not always follow such noble ideals as no-privacy, particularly if they will have grey area sorts of cases, such as keep launch codes secret. It's just such a farce. I never thought anyone could make Zuckerberg seem like someone that has intelligent thoughts about privacy but here we are.
I don't know of any way to actually implement this in practice -- there probably isn't one -- but it's an interesting thought experiment. It's possible that privacy isn't a moral right and perhaps isn't necessary at all. The argument for privacy seems to be predicated on other people being immoral. If you could identify immoral people 100% accurately then perhaps the need for privacy goes away. In fact, if that were the status quo you might claim that keeping something private is immoral.
In Dyer's privacy-less utopia, it just takes one person to break the rules, to keep things to themselves, to create a power disparity.
We already know from other experiences that public display of financial account numbers results in bad actors taking advantage of them (eg Jeremy Clarkson's stunt, or the disaster relief credit card pictured in a story on Hurricane Katrina). One chosen individual is unlikely to be a bad actor. The general public does however contain them - opening up to one individual is quite different to a wide demographic.
http://i.imgur.com/zUh8qfn.png
> Suppose, hypothetically, I wanted to meet a beautiful "little person." Where, in your opinion, would one go to most reliably be acquainted with such a treasure? — feeling determined.
Is he making a joke, is he someone that treats people as objects? There's no context, his ideals don't work.
But maybe not. Maybe we'll get videos of people dumping water buckets on themselves.
Maybe, except that because information asymmetry provides an advantage, and sometimes a huge one, there will always be an incredibly strong incentive for each individual to keep secrets. An overwhelmingly strong incentive, I posit.
Enforcing total transparency would basically require us to read everyone's thoughts.
I like it btw - I agree that dealin with loss of privacy means asymmetry in knowledge unless we make things transparent.
2.implement and roll out fail proof reporting tech
3.Restrict access to feeds
4.8.9.1 is what you'll see in the oblong mirror (bonus if you get to call the tech telescreen)
>I don't need a fair trial: I'm not a criminal!
>I don't need free speech: I'm not a radical!
>I don't need a free press: there's no corruption!
Just like what Orwell discussed in 1984, words such as "liberty" and "freedom" are only propagandaspeak used to rally the population behind a vague sense of patriotism. The actual concepts behind these phrases have been systematically eliminated.