3 ms·

It is. I've always countered with "So, you'd be okay if a government agent was watching you have sex with your wife? Every time it happened? For the next 10 ye

It is. I've always countered with "So, you'd be okay if a government agent was watching you have sex with your wife? Every time it happened? For the next 10 years?" You're doing nothing wrong, nothing bad will come of it, but that question always brings that awkward pause: that realization that "wait a second, privacy IS important even if I'm not doing anything wrong." As a side note, people hide things from other people all the time. That's what people do. None of us would like it if all of our insecurities, resentments, any negative thought were exposed to others. In my opinion, those who say they have nothing to hide, are either profoundly ignorant of their selves, or simply lying to themselves and others, i.e. my job depends on me believing and extolling this untruth.

purpled_haze 11y ago
> I've always countered with "So, you'd be okay if a government agent was watching you have sex with your wife? Every time it happened? For the next 10 years?" That actually wouldn't bother me at all. I'd kind of feel sorry for them, though. Neither of us is a trained actor/actress for that sort of thing, and we're not in prime shape, either.
cheatdeath 11y ago
I'm not sure that's the best way to counter the quite common "I don't have anything to hide so I don't care if they spy on me" reaction. As the other reply to your comment shows, many would say that it's very unlikely a government agent would bother or want to watch them having sex. I usually counter by reminding them that it's not just about them - it's about journalists, whistleblowers, lawyers, judges, activists, politicians, etc. Should the government be able to access their communications and track their online activities? People generally understand why that is a bad thing. While everybody absolutely should be worried that their personal online activities are being tracked, it seems like that's a harder sell.
csandreasen 11y ago
To which I would ask "Under what circumstances would the government pay a federal agent to watch me have sex for the next 10 years?" This and the similar comparisons that I often see raised in response to the "I have nothing to hide" argument are ridiculous hypotheticals that are raised without taking into account who is violating the subject's privacy and why. When someone says "I have nothing to hide" it's generally short for "I have committed no crimes and I trust law enforcement officials to a) only invade someone's privacy when they have reasonable grounds (implying that they got a warrant); and b) use any data collected only in pursuit of actual criminal investigations (e.g. they're not going to steal my credit cards and broadcast naked pictures all over the internet). If you're going to change people's minds with that argument, you need to be able to demonstrate that people's data is being routinely searched without just cause and/or police are routinely abusing the fruits of those searches.
- hitekker 11y ago
  > "Under what circumstances would the government pay a federal agent to watch me have sex for the next 10 years?" When the federal agent is abusing her or his authority, of course. This point can then serve to to bring up deeper research which illustrate that this "ridiculous" hypothetical is a stone's throw away from what has already happened, and what may be happening now. Such as: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-... Or, http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg_report_nsa_employees_have_deliberately_abused_their_power.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg... The first step of persuasion is describing how the problem for the many is a problem for the individual, i.e. the other party. People are less inclined to read more into things ( or listen to a longer explanation) if they don't see an immediate personal stake. "God, this guy keeps on talking. The NSA is listening in to ten million people's phone calls? Their email too? Well, that's their problem! I haven't done anything wrong!" > "I have nothing to hide" it's generally short for... The statement I intended to castigate was "I don't have anything to hide, so I don't care if they spy on me". I did not clearly elucidate that in my original response and instead shortened the statement to "I have nothing to hide", which was a mistake. "I have nothing to hide" by itself is indeed shorthand that can be said in some contexts without reflecting badly on its speaker. But in discussions about government abuses/ovverreach in which there is ample evidence that law enforcement officials have been untrustworthy, the "so I don't care if they spy on me" indicates some self-delusion.
  - csandreasen 11y ago
    There's a huge difference between those links and showing systemic abuse. When I actually go and read the stories behind your links, what you state is that 13 people in 10 years abusing their position at the NSA to spy on their significant others (and subsequently being fired, resigning or being relieved of their positions[1]) is a stone's throw away from having a federal agent being assigned to watch me personally have intercourse. This says to me that the average American should be about as worried about being spied on by the NSA as they are worried about being struck by lightning on a clear day. The odds might go up slightly if they had a jealous ex working at the NSA. I have better odds of getting shot by a government agent than being spied on, and I generally manage to get through my day without worrying that I'll die at the hands of the US government. I think that's probably the biggest reason that so few people outside of HN/Reddit/etc. care about Snowden leaks. I can find plenty of people that are upset about police brutality, and there's lots of discussion about implementing body cameras, discrimination in law enforcement, etc. because I can find new, documented evidence of someone getting shot by a cop every other week. It's still not at the level where I worry that I'm going to get shot by a cop. Snowden showed potential for abuse, not actual abuse. That's why "I have nothing to hide" persists. [1] The source document for the LOVEINT stories (not linked from either of those articles) is https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_letter.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_let...

purpled_haze 11y ago

> I've always countered with "So, you'd be okay if a government agent was watching you have sex with your wife? Every time it happened? For the next 10 years?" That actually wouldn't bother me at all. I'd kind of feel sorry for them, though. Neither of us is a trained actor/actress for that sort of thing, and we're not in prime shape, either.

cheatdeath 11y ago

I'm not sure that's the best way to counter the quite common "I don't have anything to hide so I don't care if they spy on me" reaction. As the other reply to your comment shows, many would say that it's very unlikely a government agent would bother or want to watch them having sex. I usually counter by reminding them that it's not just about them - it's about journalists, whistleblowers, lawyers, judges, activists, politicians, etc. Should the government be able to access their communications and track their online activities? People generally understand why that is a bad thing. While everybody absolutely should be worried that their personal online activities are being tracked, it seems like that's a harder sell.

csandreasen 11y ago

To which I would ask "Under what circumstances would the government pay a federal agent to watch me have sex for the next 10 years?" This and the similar comparisons that I often see raised in response to the "I have nothing to hide" argument are ridiculous hypotheticals that are raised without taking into account who is violating the subject's privacy and why. When someone says "I have nothing to hide" it's generally short for "I have committed no crimes and I trust law enforcement officials to a) only invade someone's privacy when they have reasonable grounds (implying that they got a warrant); and b) use any data collected only in pursuit of actual criminal investigations (e.g. they're not going to steal my credit cards and broadcast naked pictures all over the internet). If you're going to change people's minds with that argument, you need to be able to demonstrate that people's data is being routinely searched without just cause and/or police are routinely abusing the fruits of those searches.

hitekker 11y ago
> "Under what circumstances would the government pay a federal agent to watch me have sex for the next 10 years?" When the federal agent is abusing her or his authority, of course. This point can then serve to to bring up deeper research which illustrate that this "ridiculous" hypothetical is a stone's throw away from what has already happened, and what may be happening now. Such as: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-idUSBRE98Q14G20130927 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-... Or, http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg_report_nsa_employees_have_deliberately_abused_their_power.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg... The first step of persuasion is describing how the problem for the many is a problem for the individual, i.e. the other party. People are less inclined to read more into things ( or listen to a longer explanation) if they don't see an immediate personal stake. "God, this guy keeps on talking. The NSA is listening in to ten million people's phone calls? Their email too? Well, that's their problem! I haven't done anything wrong!" > "I have nothing to hide" it's generally short for... The statement I intended to castigate was "I don't have anything to hide, so I don't care if they spy on me". I did not clearly elucidate that in my original response and instead shortened the statement to "I have nothing to hide", which was a mistake. "I have nothing to hide" by itself is indeed shorthand that can be said in some contexts without reflecting badly on its speaker. But in discussions about government abuses/ovverreach in which there is ample evidence that law enforcement officials have been untrustworthy, the "so I don't care if they spy on me" indicates some self-delusion.
- csandreasen 11y ago
  There's a huge difference between those links and showing systemic abuse. When I actually go and read the stories behind your links, what you state is that 13 people in 10 years abusing their position at the NSA to spy on their significant others (and subsequently being fired, resigning or being relieved of their positions[1]) is a stone's throw away from having a federal agent being assigned to watch me personally have intercourse. This says to me that the average American should be about as worried about being spied on by the NSA as they are worried about being struck by lightning on a clear day. The odds might go up slightly if they had a jealous ex working at the NSA. I have better odds of getting shot by a government agent than being spied on, and I generally manage to get through my day without worrying that I'll die at the hands of the US government. I think that's probably the biggest reason that so few people outside of HN/Reddit/etc. care about Snowden leaks. I can find plenty of people that are upset about police brutality, and there's lots of discussion about implementing body cameras, discrimination in law enforcement, etc. because I can find new, documented evidence of someone getting shot by a cop every other week. It's still not at the level where I worry that I'm going to get shot by a cop. Snowden showed potential for abuse, not actual abuse. That's why "I have nothing to hide" persists. [1] The source document for the LOVEINT stories (not linked from either of those articles) is https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_letter.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_let...