Comment by csallen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by csallen | Hacker News Reader

Okay don't crucify me here... but am I the only one who thinks that this vague concept of privacy is overrated?

Everyone on the internet is so concerned about their stuff being "out there". What does that even mean? Tens of thousands of real-life strangers see your face, your children, your address every year. If I wanted to stalk a random person all day every day in real life, how much information could I gather? Who would find out?

For some reason it's scary to use Gmail, but it's fine to walk into your bank and hand over your entire financial history to a complete stranger. People fear the internet because they fear the unknown. Call me crazy, why don't we focus on actual issues instead? While you are wasting time complaining that Google "has your data", people are dying of heart diseases, hunger, AIDS, cancer, bad emo music, McDonald's, and car crashes, okay? People got real problems.

On the more practical side, I would argue that the real problem is not one of privacy, but one of security and common sense. Would you leave a diary of your secret thoughts sitting on your coffee table? Would you let a stranger store it for? Probably not. Then why would you put your private information on Google Docs or Facebook or your blog?

P.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the author actually argues that Google owes people something, besides great service. And for no other reason than to tip the balance of power away from itself, otherwise it's "evil". What?

Look to history for the answer to why privacy is so critical to a functioning, free society.

If you don't care about freedom, then privacy is indeed overrated.

Basically, every law or power given to the government needs to be evaluated as if the most evil entity imaginable were using it. If it is bad in that context, then it is a bad law.

Faulty logic in my opinion: In the past, people used X to do bad thing Y. Therefore, X is bad. Should I not be allowed to have a gun, because someone else shot someone?

It's not having a gun that's bad: it's murder. You can murder in all sorts a way without a gun.

It's not collecting data that's bad: it's violating trust. You can violate trust in all sorts of ways without collecting data.

But huge pools of data are a temptation to break trust in the way that leaving a gun in the middle of the street is an invitation to steal it.

A better analogy would be that huge pools of data are a temptation to break trust in the way that leaving a huge pile of money lying in the street is a temptation to steal it. That's what those people see in that data, huge piles of money.

The question is should we outlaw things that in and of themselves aren't wrong, but are so tempting that a large minority of people who wouldn't otherwise break the law fall for the temptation and decide to. DUI isn't inherently wrong, but the odds of it resulting in harm are so great that it makes sense to outlaw it. Most of the time DUI is a victim-less crime, that doesn't mean it should be legal unless you mess up and kill someone.

Privacy to me isn't about hiding things. Its about the freedom to choose where to draw the line. If you read Bruce Schneier's post, you will find a few (there are tons) examples of this. And just because everyone 'does it' doesn't make it right. Google is the biggest implicit data collector in the world. Their motto suggests that they do not want to be 'evil'. They have a responsibility to ensure this data exchange for value becomes more explicit. [fixed annoying typo]

Go read the full Bruce Schneier article that was also posted on HN.

According to you searching for an embarassing incident/health problem etc on Google is equivalent to putting your private diary on your coffee table? Well trolled.

Privacy is a fundamental requirement to remain human.

Fully agree

Reply on news.ycombinator.com