6 ms·

yes, the response to "if you have nothing to hide" should be "you first then". Imagine if the question was: "can I watch you through your window ?" - "no."

yes, the response to "if you have nothing to hide" should be "you first then". Imagine if the question was: "can I watch you through your window ?" - "no." "why, what have you got to hide ?" - "nothing, I just value my privacy like any normal human. It's my house, so mind your own business" Now you could counter "yes but the web is a public space". But it's not entirely. Some of it is public, some of it is private. Our email conversations with our friends and family, our video chats etc should be private. (They're not of course, they're all intercepted and stored forever, but they should be private).

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Why do you want to watch me through the window. You can come and look if you want as long as you're not doing it to perv over me I couldn't really care less. To keep the analogy don't we need to add two provisos though: you can't tell anyone about it or you lose your job and face prosecution (unless you can convince the CPS that there's a case against me, then you have your say in court); and you'll need to convince a judge that you have a legal need, that also serves the public interest, to observe me. >Our email conversations with our friends and family, our video chats etc should be private. (They're not of course, they're all intercepted and stored forever, but they should be private). // AIUI the UK Investigatory Powers Act is storing domains visited for a limited time and requires a warrant to enable access, access then only being granted to officers of a particular standing (so they can't pass the details around and the named officer is responsible if the info is leaked). Am I getting the wrong message? I've not had time to read the Act yet. Security services are almost certainly able to access that data, but then that's been true for a long time and is covered by far more generic laws, the IPA isn't addressing that (is it?). tl;dr - if I don't care if you sit and watch me watching Masterchef, or playing on Steam, or if you read my emails to customers, or see what I buy (just like you can if I go to a shop), then ... is there anything left that you can say to convince me I should be hiding what I do online. "I don't hide what I do IRL, why hide online"?
- detritus 10y ago
  As a postulation, that's fine enough, but is there any human being on Earth who could honestly claim they wouldn't mind some stranger or group of strangers standing at their window, watching them live? I doubt it.
  - matz1 10y ago
    Yes，my initial unconscious reaction is I don't like the idea to be watched but then again if I really think about it, actually I don't have real reason to be against it. Having to keep secret, maintain privacy to me its a burden, significant amount of work, inconvenience. So yes, as long as you are not distrurbing or trying to harm me, I would not mind if you are watching me, If possible I prefer to not have secret.
    - eponeponepon 10y ago
      Sometimes your initial unconscious reaction is the right one to pay attention to. Being watched, in our distant evolutionary past, would often have been a prelude to being hunted - and it still is in this case. The sabre-toothed tiger might decide not to attack you - but you won't know that until it has attacked you. And besides, though you might very well prefer not to have secrets, you should extend that to those watching you.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      The point of privacy is for the times when you need it. You should defend that right even in the times you don't feel you need it. For example, in the US, most people are not afraid to share their political beliefs. This is because, in the US, it isn't common to be harmed or even killed for your beliefs. This is not true in every country or even for every part of the US. So being able to keep your political views a secret is important. In a world where this is not possible it can quickly become dangerous to hold the "wrong beliefs" publicly. Do you believe you only uphold the "right beliefs"? And if so - are you 100% certain those beliefs will never turn into the "wrong beliefs" to have? If you answer "no" to either question then privacy should be important to you.
      - 10y ago
- eponeponepon 10y ago
  > I don't hide what I do IRL So you change your clothes, bathe, go to the toilet and have sex in full view of others? Or, more pertinently, would be happy to be legally required to do so?
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    I'm searching for a convincing argument. This isn't it. Are you saying that the UK IPA is going to let computers magically see me on the toilet and pass those images on to the police, or that the government somehow needs to see me on the toilet and so will get a court order for it? This hyperbole obscures any point you're trying to make IMO. The closest analogy I think that's reasonable on say your "have sex in full view of others" that's pertinent is that the government could overhear me talking to someone about sex and would record that I had talked to someone about sex. Now for an abuser that might be an issue, but for me it's not. Take a step back. What's your best argument to convince me gov access [by warrant] to a list of domains I've visited - where I haven't used a VPN, or other obscuring method - means I'm giving up my civil liberties in a way that will have a damaging impact on me? I can see it can for a small portion of society, a lot of [non-petty] criminals. I can see it might for political dissidents in a country lacking rule of law; UK isn't perfect in that regard but it's close to having a fully independent judiciary and a fully working rule of law. [FWIW I wouldn't vote for such a law, but I'm yet to be convinced by the arguments I've seen, primarily because they are so outlandishly hyperbolic.]
    - SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
      In the death of Gareth Williams (he was the ex GCHQ spy who was found dead, enclosed in a locked bag in his bath) the authorities brought up the fact that he'd visited BDSM porn sites as a way of explaining the unusual circumstances of his death. This proves that the government is willing to selectively present out of context information from someone's browsing history in court in order to further their agenda. If you believe every employee at all 49 agencies who have access to this data will never misuse it, well, you're more trusting than me. And I haven't even touched on any of those agencies being the conduit of leaked information, and the ramifications of that. If the NSA can't even keep a lid on confidential information when it's staffed with some of the most experienced and intelligent techs in the world, what hope does the Department for Work and Pensions have?
- randcraw 10y ago
  Why is clandestine surveillance of everyone bad? Because anyone with more power than you and the will to abuse it can simply label you as an 'undesirable'. If I'm a local police officer with access to surveillance data, and I see something about you that I don't like, I am much likelier to act against you or your family or friends. And since I spied on you invisibly, you'll never know what list of 'undesirables' your name may be on, or why, nor can you ever get off the list. As an undesirable, I (as a bureaucrat hungry for power) might uninvite you and yours from my college, business, bank loan, job offer, or I might simply charge you more for goods or services. Given the power, I can make your life hell for reasons you'll never know and have no redress to challenge. In 1870s to 1960s America these kinds of off-the-book practices were called 'Jim Crow', intended to repress minorities and especially blacks from the civil rights and protections that were theirs by law. If our 21st century government regresses to the same state the FBI did under Hoover -- not inconceivable under Trump, since it already has occurred under Obama as he allowed CIA and NSA to escape oversight from congress or the press and hide from their abuses of constitutional law -- the likelihood of history repeating itself using domestic espionage has become almost a certainty. If you still have doubts about the threat to everyone from unlimited domestic surveillance to big and small, innocent and guilty, then reread Orwell's 1984. And never forget that EVERYONE is part of some minority that will become unpopular eventually.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

Why do you want to watch me through the window. You can come and look if you want as long as you're not doing it to perv over me I couldn't really care less. To keep the analogy don't we need to add two provisos though: you can't tell anyone about it or you lose your job and face prosecution (unless you can convince the CPS that there's a case against me, then you have your say in court); and you'll need to convince a judge that you have a legal need, that also serves the public interest, to observe me. >Our email conversations with our friends and family, our video chats etc should be private. (They're not of course, they're all intercepted and stored forever, but they should be private). // AIUI the UK Investigatory Powers Act is storing domains visited for a limited time and requires a warrant to enable access, access then only being granted to officers of a particular standing (so they can't pass the details around and the named officer is responsible if the info is leaked). Am I getting the wrong message? I've not had time to read the Act yet. Security services are almost certainly able to access that data, but then that's been true for a long time and is covered by far more generic laws, the IPA isn't addressing that (is it?). tl;dr - if I don't care if you sit and watch me watching Masterchef, or playing on Steam, or if you read my emails to customers, or see what I buy (just like you can if I go to a shop), then ... is there anything left that you can say to convince me I should be hiding what I do online. "I don't hide what I do IRL, why hide online"?

detritus 10y ago
As a postulation, that's fine enough, but is there any human being on Earth who could honestly claim they wouldn't mind some stranger or group of strangers standing at their window, watching them live? I doubt it.
- matz1 10y ago
  Yes，my initial unconscious reaction is I don't like the idea to be watched but then again if I really think about it, actually I don't have real reason to be against it. Having to keep secret, maintain privacy to me its a burden, significant amount of work, inconvenience. So yes, as long as you are not distrurbing or trying to harm me, I would not mind if you are watching me, If possible I prefer to not have secret.
  - eponeponepon 10y ago
    Sometimes your initial unconscious reaction is the right one to pay attention to. Being watched, in our distant evolutionary past, would often have been a prelude to being hunted - and it still is in this case. The sabre-toothed tiger might decide not to attack you - but you won't know that until it has attacked you. And besides, though you might very well prefer not to have secrets, you should extend that to those watching you.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    The point of privacy is for the times when you need it. You should defend that right even in the times you don't feel you need it. For example, in the US, most people are not afraid to share their political beliefs. This is because, in the US, it isn't common to be harmed or even killed for your beliefs. This is not true in every country or even for every part of the US. So being able to keep your political views a secret is important. In a world where this is not possible it can quickly become dangerous to hold the "wrong beliefs" publicly. Do you believe you only uphold the "right beliefs"? And if so - are you 100% certain those beliefs will never turn into the "wrong beliefs" to have? If you answer "no" to either question then privacy should be important to you.
    - 10y ago
eponeponepon 10y ago
> I don't hide what I do IRL So you change your clothes, bathe, go to the toilet and have sex in full view of others? Or, more pertinently, would be happy to be legally required to do so?
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  I'm searching for a convincing argument. This isn't it. Are you saying that the UK IPA is going to let computers magically see me on the toilet and pass those images on to the police, or that the government somehow needs to see me on the toilet and so will get a court order for it? This hyperbole obscures any point you're trying to make IMO. The closest analogy I think that's reasonable on say your "have sex in full view of others" that's pertinent is that the government could overhear me talking to someone about sex and would record that I had talked to someone about sex. Now for an abuser that might be an issue, but for me it's not. Take a step back. What's your best argument to convince me gov access [by warrant] to a list of domains I've visited - where I haven't used a VPN, or other obscuring method - means I'm giving up my civil liberties in a way that will have a damaging impact on me? I can see it can for a small portion of society, a lot of [non-petty] criminals. I can see it might for political dissidents in a country lacking rule of law; UK isn't perfect in that regard but it's close to having a fully independent judiciary and a fully working rule of law. [FWIW I wouldn't vote for such a law, but I'm yet to be convinced by the arguments I've seen, primarily because they are so outlandishly hyperbolic.]
  - SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
    In the death of Gareth Williams (he was the ex GCHQ spy who was found dead, enclosed in a locked bag in his bath) the authorities brought up the fact that he'd visited BDSM porn sites as a way of explaining the unusual circumstances of his death. This proves that the government is willing to selectively present out of context information from someone's browsing history in court in order to further their agenda. If you believe every employee at all 49 agencies who have access to this data will never misuse it, well, you're more trusting than me. And I haven't even touched on any of those agencies being the conduit of leaked information, and the ramifications of that. If the NSA can't even keep a lid on confidential information when it's staffed with some of the most experienced and intelligent techs in the world, what hope does the Department for Work and Pensions have?
randcraw 10y ago
Why is clandestine surveillance of everyone bad? Because anyone with more power than you and the will to abuse it can simply label you as an 'undesirable'. If I'm a local police officer with access to surveillance data, and I see something about you that I don't like, I am much likelier to act against you or your family or friends. And since I spied on you invisibly, you'll never know what list of 'undesirables' your name may be on, or why, nor can you ever get off the list. As an undesirable, I (as a bureaucrat hungry for power) might uninvite you and yours from my college, business, bank loan, job offer, or I might simply charge you more for goods or services. Given the power, I can make your life hell for reasons you'll never know and have no redress to challenge. In 1870s to 1960s America these kinds of off-the-book practices were called 'Jim Crow', intended to repress minorities and especially blacks from the civil rights and protections that were theirs by law. If our 21st century government regresses to the same state the FBI did under Hoover -- not inconceivable under Trump, since it already has occurred under Obama as he allowed CIA and NSA to escape oversight from congress or the press and hide from their abuses of constitutional law -- the likelihood of history repeating itself using domestic espionage has become almost a certainty. If you still have doubts about the threat to everyone from unlimited domestic surveillance to big and small, innocent and guilty, then reread Orwell's 1984. And never forget that EVERYONE is part of some minority that will become unpopular eventually.