5 ms·

This is just a list of more things for them to clamp down on. I'm thinking about going in the opposite direction, and broadcasting all of my personally identif

by btrask 10y ago

This is just a list of more things for them to clamp down on. I'm thinking about going in the opposite direction, and broadcasting all of my personally identifying information (credit card, SSN, etc). Obviously I would have to set aside a large amount of time to deal with issuing fraud reports, and make sure that I wasn't risking anything that I can't afford to lose--but it does seem simpler in some ways. After all, if you don't have anything to hide, you're bulletproof, right?

WA 10y ago
The problem: "Nothing to hide" depends on the context. Maybe you don't have anything to hide under the current laws, but what about laws in 20 years from now? Maybe times change and suddenly, you've got a lot to hide.
- Kiro 10y ago
  This is a non-argument for me but may work for others. I couldn't care less what happens in 20 years. I don't even know if I'm alive then. It may be irrational but I simply don't care.
  - mbrock 10y ago
    Then you're not receptive to any reasoning about future values, which seems sad.
    - Kiro 10y ago
      Why is it sad? I live in the moment and I'm very happy. I'm not saying everyone should be like me though.
      - mbrock 10y ago
        It's sad because it seems to treat the entire future as a kind of lost cause, which to me is primally saddening, like nihilism or solipsism.
        Kiro 10y ago
        No, that's not what I'm saying. I care about privacy for other peoples' sake and partly for my own. But my own personal future is a non-issue. The future of the world is not.
- sleepychu 10y ago
  I'm having trouble finding it but the perfect example of this is a census that collected religious affiliation (for innocent statistics) that some brave citizens went to great lengths to destroy when they came under Nazi occupation in order to try and protect Jewish residents.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    While an interesting story, I don't think it is as meaningful as people try to make it here. Sure, the census might have helped Nazis quite a lot in committing atrocities. But it doesn't mean the census wasn't genuinely useful, and - more generally - you can't make day-to-day decisions on the assumption that you'll get invaded and conquered by extermination-minded people.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Are you allowed to weigh the benefits versus the costs of participating? To whom were the stats "genuinely useful"? You don't need to weigh things against extermination explicitly, just any bad consequence, including political ones.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        You are basically asking about the usefulness of demography in the society. I think it's pretty easy to imagine plenty of uses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > it's pretty easy to imagine plenty of uses To all individuals equally? weighed against individual risk?
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Here are some things people were targeted over in the past: - generic wealth level - generic education level - living in a particular area of the country - disabilities - having small children You could probably find more examples like those if you browse the history of humanity. The point is, you can be targeted over anything, and you can't predict what it will be in advance. The Nazis exterminated members of religious minorities and different sexual orientation, which was somewhat unusual in history. The Soviets killed people with high educational credentials and with lots of wealth. Who knows what the next evil empire will pick as an excuse to murder people? You can't run a society on the assumption it's doomed and everyone will get massacred. That some particular demographical data will be used to select and murder people is a low-probability hypothetical. That it is useful for managing a country right now is a fact. I get one not wanting to be oversharing about oneself, but I don't think that a remote possibility that a piece of demographic data will be used for evil purposes is grounds for ditching censuses altogether. This is not something we should be paranoid about.
gsanghera 10y ago
Nice idea! If you do this, your defense to the banks could be that the government forced you to go public. You're covered.
q-base 10y ago
As another pointed out, nothing to hide depends on context and context can be other than legal context. Your browser history or credit card statements for porn sites may not be illegal, but might hamper your political career or personal life. You may be the CEO of a non-profit aiming to combat fossil fuels in which case your youth spent tractor pulling or drag racing may prove "annoying" once a adversary succeeds in spinning the history right. There are lots of examples where nothing to hide has absolutely nothing to do with the law. And the big deal here is that YOU decide for yourself what your conscience can commit to - not public debate.
noja 10y ago
With the phrase "nothing to _hide_" you are starting from a bias: that if you have something that is not public knowledge then it must be wrong or evil and must therefore be hidden.
- tome 10y ago
  This is an excellent observation. Perhaps the phrase should be "If you have nothing private you have nothing to fear".
  - noja 10y ago
    Exactly :) And that better sentence busts open the assumption :)
csrm123 10y ago
I like the idea of digital chaff: publishing huge amounts of completely erroneous information about yourself and everyone else means that no one knows what to believe anymore. Shouldn't a service like this exist?
- stephengillie 10y ago
  What would this look like? Maybe a bot that went to dodgy sites, and signed up for accounts in your name, with random-but-valid data? Maybe it would go into comment threads, Google the title, and post a blurb paragraph from a top result? Use karma and elastic search to machine learn which sites and topics to post? It might even respond to questions with the specific random data for that site from when it signed up, to keep it consistent.
  - Balgair 10y ago
    I mean, what you describe is most comments on Youtube or anywhere really. Can't we just pay a measly sum to some troll and let them run loose with a bot network conditioned on the fever-rants of 4chan/b/? Would this make the net worse? Could we tell?

by btrask 10y ago

WA 10y ago

The problem: "Nothing to hide" depends on the context. Maybe you don't have anything to hide under the current laws, but what about laws in 20 years from now? Maybe times change and suddenly, you've got a lot to hide.

Kiro 10y ago
This is a non-argument for me but may work for others. I couldn't care less what happens in 20 years. I don't even know if I'm alive then. It may be irrational but I simply don't care.
- mbrock 10y ago
  Then you're not receptive to any reasoning about future values, which seems sad.
  - Kiro 10y ago
    Why is it sad? I live in the moment and I'm very happy. I'm not saying everyone should be like me though.
    - mbrock 10y ago
      It's sad because it seems to treat the entire future as a kind of lost cause, which to me is primally saddening, like nihilism or solipsism.
      - Kiro 10y ago
        No, that's not what I'm saying. I care about privacy for other peoples' sake and partly for my own. But my own personal future is a non-issue. The future of the world is not.
sleepychu 10y ago
I'm having trouble finding it but the perfect example of this is a census that collected religious affiliation (for innocent statistics) that some brave citizens went to great lengths to destroy when they came under Nazi occupation in order to try and protect Jewish residents.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  While an interesting story, I don't think it is as meaningful as people try to make it here. Sure, the census might have helped Nazis quite a lot in committing atrocities. But it doesn't mean the census wasn't genuinely useful, and - more generally - you can't make day-to-day decisions on the assumption that you'll get invaded and conquered by extermination-minded people.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Are you allowed to weigh the benefits versus the costs of participating? To whom were the stats "genuinely useful"? You don't need to weigh things against extermination explicitly, just any bad consequence, including political ones.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      You are basically asking about the usefulness of demography in the society. I think it's pretty easy to imagine plenty of uses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > it's pretty easy to imagine plenty of uses To all individuals equally? weighed against individual risk?
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Here are some things people were targeted over in the past: - generic wealth level - generic education level - living in a particular area of the country - disabilities - having small children You could probably find more examples like those if you browse the history of humanity. The point is, you can be targeted over anything, and you can't predict what it will be in advance. The Nazis exterminated members of religious minorities and different sexual orientation, which was somewhat unusual in history. The Soviets killed people with high educational credentials and with lots of wealth. Who knows what the next evil empire will pick as an excuse to murder people? You can't run a society on the assumption it's doomed and everyone will get massacred. That some particular demographical data will be used to select and murder people is a low-probability hypothetical. That it is useful for managing a country right now is a fact. I get one not wanting to be oversharing about oneself, but I don't think that a remote possibility that a piece of demographic data will be used for evil purposes is grounds for ditching censuses altogether. This is not something we should be paranoid about.

gsanghera 10y ago

Nice idea! If you do this, your defense to the banks could be that the government forced you to go public. You're covered.

q-base 10y ago

As another pointed out, nothing to hide depends on context and context can be other than legal context. Your browser history or credit card statements for porn sites may not be illegal, but might hamper your political career or personal life. You may be the CEO of a non-profit aiming to combat fossil fuels in which case your youth spent tractor pulling or drag racing may prove "annoying" once a adversary succeeds in spinning the history right. There are lots of examples where nothing to hide has absolutely nothing to do with the law. And the big deal here is that YOU decide for yourself what your conscience can commit to - not public debate.

noja 10y ago

With the phrase "nothing to _hide_" you are starting from a bias: that if you have something that is not public knowledge then it must be wrong or evil and must therefore be hidden.

tome 10y ago
This is an excellent observation. Perhaps the phrase should be "If you have nothing private you have nothing to fear".
- noja 10y ago
  Exactly :) And that better sentence busts open the assumption :)

csrm123 10y ago

I like the idea of digital chaff: publishing huge amounts of completely erroneous information about yourself and everyone else means that no one knows what to believe anymore. Shouldn't a service like this exist?

stephengillie 10y ago
What would this look like? Maybe a bot that went to dodgy sites, and signed up for accounts in your name, with random-but-valid data? Maybe it would go into comment threads, Google the title, and post a blurb paragraph from a top result? Use karma and elastic search to machine learn which sites and topics to post? It might even respond to questions with the specific random data for that site from when it signed up, to keep it consistent.
- Balgair 10y ago
  I mean, what you describe is most comments on Youtube or anywhere really. Can't we just pay a measly sum to some troll and let them run loose with a bot network conditioned on the fever-rants of 4chan/b/? Would this make the net worse? Could we tell?