7 ms·

Ask HN: What's a good response to “It's fine, I've got nothing to hide online”?

• superfad 9y ago
  They may not care about their own privacy but they should care about privacy online as a whole because there are most definitely people who have legitimate reasons for privacy such as journalists, activists or politicians. If they don't care about online privacy ask them if they also don't care about racism because they are not black or a minority.
• onion2k 9y ago
  "You're not just sharing your data with Facebook. You're sharing your data with Facebook and anyone Facebook subsequently gives access to that data. That's companies, governments, and individuals. You may trust Facebook, but do you trust everyone?"
• amauk 9y ago
  I've often found that people don't fully understand the staged process. The fact that, most of the time, it's not what you directly supply to a 3rd party (as that's often innocuous) But the fact that this can be used as a stepping stone to gaining other, more private details. The example I often use (as it's actually happened to people) is the different usage of the last 4 digits of a bank card. Some companies will freely throw this info around, as a convenience to the user. In emailed order confirmations, etc. Other companies, however, use the last 4 digits of a card as a security measure To confirm you are the account holder, please supply the last 4 digits of the card used, or whatever. Using social engineering, you can play these 2 companies off of each other, and possible gain some extra information A name, a billing address, or whatever. I try to emphasis that you, the user, are not involved in this at all This is a person going back and forth between various company's call-centres using the info to gain more It's a to-and-fro, initially with only the innocuous information, but by the end you possibly have the authority to order something using the legit card and billing address but delivery to a PO box (sorry, UK terminology here, unsure what the US equiv. of a PO box would be, but delivery to a post office for collection) I try to steer away from the more outlandish stuff (while true, and in use, people seem to dismiss them - like the recent psychological manipulation used on Facebook) I try to keep it simple, someone ordering some jewellery on your card and collecting it from a PO box, all completely without your knowledge I also try to emphasis the importance of securing your email account. As someone with access to your email can run through the "I forgot my password" things on various popular sites. I like the "last 4 digits of a card" thing, as most people have come across this difference User convenience vs. security measure But it's never registered as a potential problem
  • jowsie 9y ago
    >I like the "last 4 digits of a card" thing, as most people have come across this difference User convenience vs. security measure But it's never registered as a potential problem As someone who is against the facebook data slurp, this is something I'd never really noticed till just now either.
• wakeywakeywakey 9y ago
  "I do."
  • cJ0th 9y ago
    yeah, pretty much this. The problem with people willing to share everything is that they don't realize they're also sharing data about other people. Classic example would be address books that many apps are allowed to read.This can be dangerous for journalists or whistle blower as it becomes easier to infer their whereabouts. The more general problem is that social media gives away a high resolution model of how a certain society is functioning. The danger here is that someone else knows more about a group of people than the members themselves. Anyone who gets hold of the data can use it as a great foundation for social engineering. Be it rulers of countries that slipped into dictatorship, black hat hackers or terrorists.
• nanis 9y ago
  One might have nothing to hide from one's neighbor either, but one might wonder why he is keeping a detailed log of one's comings and goings, visitors, the times the bathroom light is turned on etc, as well as attaching tracking devices to one's car, bike, skis, and even clothing. One might get really uneasy if one finds out he has been collecting detailed information about one from the grocery store, gas station, movie theater, and restaurants etc. Even if one is not doing anything wrong, one might feel uneasy about having a "permanent record" of all one's movements tied to one's full biometric information.
• kgraves 9y ago
  Ask them if they are comfortable sharing their private facebook messages, emails, snapchats, contacts, map locations, and pictures with you upfront to look at. Then show them this: https://youtu.be/TX8MSZy5I3I https://youtu.be/TX8MSZy5I3I Facebook, Google, Snapchat and other services that are "free" are doing this with your personal information for profit. If the CEO of Facebook doesn't want to give out his personal information carelessly, why should you?
• i0nutzb 9y ago
  „Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
• _Donny 9y ago
  I remember seeing a documentary featuring Edward Snowden, where he said something along the lines: "Saying "I do not care about my privacy, because I have nothing to hide", is like saying "I do not care about freedom of speech, because I have nothing to say"" This explanation stuck with me, because I find it extremely useful in situations when explaining the importance of privacy online to non-technical people.
  • mxuribe 9y ago
    I use this same example, and it works well.
  • davidgrenier 9y ago
    I don't think the analogy sticks perfectly unfortunately. I might still care about freedom of speech for the freedom of others which I value. I may not agree that I find value, assuming I have nothing to hide, in other people's privacy. Not taking a position on privacy here, I'm just stating the analogy doesn't stick.
  • janneklouman 9y ago
    While a nice quote, It's not addressing why privacy matters. Most people already have an understanding of why freedom of speech is important, but might not think privacy is as important. They could easily call this "comparing apples and oranges", a similar scenario to the one in the original post.
• devn0ll 9y ago
  "Ok, then please tell me your pin code.", "How many times a week do you copulate?", "Can I take a look inside your house please". "No? Why not, you had nothing to hide? So an automated system is allowed much more detailed information about you and making money with that data? But I can't have a look inside your drawers?"
• harry8 9y ago
  Shhh, adults are talking.
• reitanqild 9y ago
  Using police as an example since I don't trust Facebook at all. For me the turning point was when I realised that while I have nothing to hide from police or governments today I might have something I wish to hide from governments in 2030. For a real world example of this, see Turkey - a country that was quickly approaching western standards but turned around in less than 2 years. Also, while I trust local police that most of them will not abuse their knowledge I don't trust them to keep that data safe from hacking for decades to come. Also, while I've used (local) police as an example of someone I trust i do not trust companies by default.
  • MajorWalrus 9y ago
    I usually reply with something similar to this. I try to remind them that the definition of "wrong" has evolved over the course of history - sometimes dramatically and quickly. The things you freely discuss on on a platform today could become socially unacceptable tomorrow and evidence against you the day after that.
  • gargravarr 9y ago
    In the early years of Mao Zedong's China, the government appeared open and willing to listen to common people's ideas on how it should be run. Many, especially younger generations, were encouraged to openly express their opinions. Shortly thereafter, Mao backtracked on the whole thing, surprising everyone, and labeled anyone who had spoken out as opposition; because people had publicly spoken out against the government, they were easily tracked down and imprisoned.[0] What the government gives with one hand, it can easily take with the other. There is no reason to think such an event could not happen again, and that what you freely share today could be used against you at some time in the future. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
• g105b 9y ago
  I have nothing to hide about my bathroom activity, but I'd feel uneasy having a Dump Indicator Light installed above my front door.
• gtsteve 9y ago
  A more aggressive example that seems to get the idea through to people: > Would you be OK with the police installing a camera in your house? Don't worry, they'll only look at it if they think you've done something wrong, you can trust them on that. Totally. You've got nothing to hide, right? I think non-tech people don't quite realise what sort of footprint they leave online, whereas the idea of a camera being in your home where someone may or may not be watching makes people feel quite uncomfortable. This is an opportunity to draw a parallel between the two. I have found this argument to be effective in changing people's views on this topic.
  • ChymeraXYZ 9y ago
    I have found that many people are not really too concerned about it. There is a home security company here that sells an alarm system and one of the indoor movement sensor units has a built in camera. No you do not have any access to the camera. No, there is no indication that it is active. No, you can not opt out. No, you can not see any source (I asked). "But it will only ever be used when there is an alarm to verify". And most of the people go: "Sure, sounds reasonable!"
    • gtsteve 9y ago
      This feels maybe a little bit more reasonable because you installed the camera yourself and have contracted a company to monitor it. You can opt out by cancelling the contract. In my example, the user has no choice, just as you frequently have no choice but to allow your web traffic or activity be monitored.
  • gargravarr 9y ago
    I often quote this as well: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-06-10 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-06-10
  • Cthulhu_ 9y ago
    Ask them if they've read 1984 and would be comfortable with having one of those bidirectional TV's in their house. ...actually that probably doesn't work anymore, given how there's smart TV's, home assistants and smartphones with always-on cameras and microphones.
• kaybe 9y ago
  I have enough of other people's secrets to protect even if I've got nothing to hide. Other people's secrets are not mine to reveal. Who is secretly pregnant, who is gay or bi and travelling in areas where that is bad, who is cheating, medical history, information about smaller law transgressions.. All of these topics and more are taboo on electronic media for me.
• varlock 9y ago
  I usually ask "So, if you have got nothing to hide, would you shower naked on your balcony for everyone to see?" Normally you wouldn't, because there could be effects you find displeasing in the best case and harming in the worst case, such as getting ridiculed/discriminated/ostracized/etc. Collecting private data about you can get you categorized in a similar way, carrying the same potential ill effects.
• pcarolan 9y ago
  I thought Senator Durbin phrased it well: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIKWURvbQ4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIKWURvbQ4
• notacoward 9y ago
  I'd start with "it's not always about you" because it's likely to stop them in their tracks long enough to get a real explanation in. Stalkers, harassers, identity thieves, and other criminals routinely use perfectly innocent information about people to harm them. So do some parts of the government, unfortunately. Even if you are not a target (which is less likely than you think), others certainly are. Children have nothing to hide either, but we still take extra privacy measures to protect them.
  • ahje 9y ago
    This is the argument I am using most of the time. Most people agree that there are malicious actors out there, and that many would be able to exploit free access to a person's personal data in some way. Would you trust a burgular with your location data when you're on vacation? No? Neither would I. Would you trust a business you barely know anything about to keep your location data out of the hands of someone who commits crime for a living? In my case, not a chance.
• chartz 9y ago
  This is maybe a controversial approach, but it works really well. Agree with them and say it is fine you have nothing to hide at this moment, but you are not important now. There are politicians, high ranked officials and a lot of other people that impact your life without you knowing that they can be influenced/blackmailed because of the lack of privacy. Maybe your future self really dislikes your lack of hiding right now or some family member is becoming a public figure and you are a weak link because you can be blackmailed. You don't control the future, so you don't know what to hide. This argument always worked/works for me :)
  • gargravarr 9y ago
    You could even paraphrase Martin Neimoller's well-known (if not the author himself, I didn't until I looked him up) poem[0]: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. I think the message is just as relevant (and powerful) to personal liberties as it is to groups of people. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
• announcerman 9y ago
  I always ask them to give me their phone for a few minutes so I can check their messaging history, invariably they refuse. Just ask them why.
  • mrarjen 9y ago
    This always works best yes, up until a person doesn't mind and you get to see things you rather not.
• timrichard 9y ago
  Some ones I've seen and liked - "If you're not doing anything wrong in your living room, why draw the curtains?" "We should save paper by sending people their bank statements on postcards. If you're not doing anything financially shady, you should be okay with the postman seeing it."
  • mxuribe 9y ago
    "Bank statements on a postcard"...this is the first time i heard this one...but, man, its a good one!
• herbst 9y ago
  When the nazis took power in some countries and they could just get out official lists about who is jew and who isn't.
• OliverJones 9y ago
  May I suggest reminding people of Martin Niemöller's famous statement post WWII? It begins "When [they] came for the socialists, I remained silent. I was not a socialist." It ends, "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." This exaggerates the downside of handing over lots of information to a third party to use however they please. But it points out the assumption that "I", whoever "I" happens to be, am somehow privileged above "them." It's remarkably easy for "I" to turn to "them."
  • gargravarr 9y ago
    Ah, you beat me to it, I quoted it as well.
• jccalhoun 9y ago
  I think the concerns over privacy online are overblown for many people but I try to be smart about what I do and put online. So I think part of it might be the framing of the situation. Rather than trying to convince them that they do actually have something to hide, it might be more effective to try to convince them that their attitude should be more like, "Don't put anything online that you don't want everyone to know" and also explain that there are people who do worry about things like people who have been in abusive relationships, people who might be in places where not being straight and cis gendered is not accepted and so on. I think it might also be good to ask yourself, "What do I want to accomplish by convincing this person to be concerned about online privacy?" and think about ways to accomplish that goal.
• gargravarr 9y ago
  I would ask to rifle through their phone right in front of them. There's a subtle difference between something you'd want to hide (because it could be incriminating) and something you don't want made public (because it could be embarrassing). I have nothing incriminating, but I have embarrassing stuff on my phone that I would rather nobody looked at. A phone is an intensely personal device where a lot of your private data resides, and it can reveal a lot of intimate things about you and your relationship with others. Many people do understand this (at least at an instinctive level) and would balk at the idea of someone invasively reading all this stuff on their phone. It's one I plan to use on airport security if they ever order me to decrypt my phone without a warrant.
  • oblio 9y ago
    This is in my opinion the best answer. You want something that causes a visceral reaction, not rational arguments. The more disgust, fear, awkwardness you can cause with your action, the clearer the message you get across.
    • gargravarr 9y ago
      Absolutely. And once you get that reaction, all you need to do to drive the privacy message home is to ask 'and why not?' No other words need to be said after that point, even if they can't come up with an answer.
  • Freak_NL 9y ago
    Why would airport security care about your reasoning? They don't need a warrant when you're still outside the border, and they most likely are not in a position to bargain with you on what they may and may not do — and they probably won't respond favourably to any attempt to do so.
    • gargravarr 9y ago
      True on all counts, but it might make the person actually doing the search question their own motives for doing so. Just because they have the power to conduct random warrantless searches with no prior suspicion (which I totally abhor as it likely leads to racial profiling, like Stop and Search here in the UK), does not mean they need to use it. Then again, I'm a university-educated white male. It'll probably never happen to me, but will disproportionately to others.
• tudorconstantin 9y ago
  Ask them what do states have to hide by having stuff classified as "top secret" or why do they run secret services. And why should I, as an individual, be transparent with an entity that is not transparent to me?
  • koolba 9y ago
    > Ask them what do states have to hide by having stuff classified as "top secret" or why do they run secret services. I’m as tinfoil hat wearing as they come but will still say that’s a terrible answer. States have intelligence agencies and maintain secrecy for both security reasons (nuclear codes shouldn’t be public right?) and privacy reasons of citizens involved (innocent till proven guilty). > And why should I, as an individual, be transparent with an entity that is not transparent to me? The first half of that is enough to stand on its own. You shouldn’t have to be transparent simply because that’s your choice to do so.
• br41nslug 9y ago
  I always use the holocaust argument where nobody cared who knew their religion they had nothing to hide, ppl dont realise how horribly seemingly harmless data can be abused.
• AlphaGeekZulu 9y ago
  It is important to point out that the quality of the data is not important. There is no such thing as dangerous vs harmless data, because that quality completely depends on the context. So I usually give a context in which "harmless" data can be misused to build trust for scamming schemes (something, that most people, that do not care about data privacy, fear a lot as real threat). I look, for example, in the fb-timeline of my counterpart and immediately come up with a story, how I, as a stranger with scamming intentions, would ring their doorbell and tell some story why I need to enter the house or collect some money or the like, making myself believable with the information I collected from the social media sites. In the same way I describe how I would draft a spear phishing mail, pretending to be some member of the inner circle by using public information of that circle. Finally I point them to the contradiction, that they ask their neighbour to empty the mailbox during their vacation, so nobody can see they are away, but then they provide a live-coverage of their trip in social media. Once they get the picture, that the burglar might not be walking down the streets looking for overflowing mailboxes but rather investigate his potential victims on facebook, they start to reconsider the "I have nothing to hide"-opinion. The trick is to set the topic into a context that is comprehensible and likely. People can often not imagine how their average lives could be interesting for corporates and governments - it is a perceived unlikelyness on a deeper level: not only do they believe that corporates and governments would not misuse privacy data, they cannot even see why such a misuse could be of any value. In their perception, there is no misuse, because there is no reason for misuse.
• oldcynic 9y ago
  Well first remind them of the difference between secrecy and privacy: "Hide? We all know what is done in the bathroom, yet we still close the door." Then you might point out that it is not about them, but the worst of everyone else, globally. Worst in business ethics, willingness to influence, extent of tracking, or criminality to steal a pw database - it matters little as there's someone covering all of those options. "Nothing to hide? What is your most unusual sexual fantasy, mother's maiden name, first pet, credit card PIN, FB and email password, SSN? I'll only mention them in one place online, delete after a day and pay back double what I spend."
  • chiefofgxbxl 9y ago
    The difference between secrecy and privacy is the key here. Emphasize that. People think they have nothing to hide (implying secrecy or guilt), but they'll admit that there are things they want to keep to themselves. There was a speaker on stage (sorry I forget the source) that asked an audience member up. The speaker asked the individual to read aloud her credit card number to the rest of the audience. She refused. He took it a step further -- he asked her to remove her clothes on stage. Again, she refused. Was she hiding something? Was she wielding a dangerous weapon under her clothes? Or was she reacting like most people presumably would by refusing to undress?
• SFjulie1 9y ago
  Totally fine with it. Giges parabole (platon) is about the fact that no morality can exists without the look of the others (hero finds a ring that makes you invisible and then kills, steals, rapes). But, if powerful persons do force this on the population then I demand that they also live by the same rules. Power is making other do what others cannot make you do. So I wait for the bless day we all can leave in an house of glass, but this will happen only the day the leaders will show the example. Else, we would be in the situation of the panopticon (prison) were we all can be scrutinized but the guardians. But who will guard us from the guardians?
• beloch 9y ago
  Ask them: "Why are you wearing pants? Are you hiding some kind of grotesque deformation under there?" Then tell them they can be a data-nudist if they really want to, but that's not how you like doing things.
• nabc45 9y ago
  If you need to post this here because you can't come up with a good response yourself, it's because they're right. And no, I'm not trying to troll
• austincheney 9y ago
  Have them read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security Relate to them how how little bits of data on Facebook is exactly the same exploitation vector for scams that enemies use in warfare (no exaggeration, it is literally the same).
  • Freak_NL 9y ago
    Look at the page you are linking to though; it starts off with twentieth century propaganda posters — and just read that first paragraph! Their response will be that they are not a target for such scams. They'll say they don't have any enemies. That they only share their holiday pictures after they get back (so criminals won't know that they are away, they're not stupid). OpSec? They'll kindly let you know that it doesn't apply to them. And besides, admitting that leaving your private data all over the place means you'll be tracked, manipulated, monetized, and cloistered from anything outside of your comfortable bubble, would also mean accepting that the vast majority of society got it wrong. Try overcoming that cognitive barrier.
• dkns 9y ago
  Would they be fine with random dude sitting in their kitchen watching them cook and what they put into fridge and take from it? Would they be fine with that dude watching their spouse, friends and kids too? I think easiest way to get point of privacy to people is through their kids. Are they fine with some random people gathering a lot of data about their kids? Besides all the analogies you have the right to privacy. Nobody should violate it just as nobody should violate your freedom, etc.
• daedalbug 9y ago
  "You many not have something to hide, but you have something to protect"
• capnrefsmmat 9y ago
  I think most people here are missing the point. You need not convince them that they do have something to hide, or that other people have good reasons for hiding things. The key point is that you do not get to decide if you have something to hide. When you share data extensively with companies or the government, they now have the power to use it to make decisions about you. They may use that power in ways you disagree with. They may punish you for things you don’t think are wrong, or deny you employment for reasons you think are stupid, and so on. It’s not your decision that you are perfect and have nothing to hide; they get to use your data and decide that. Daniel Solove has expressed a version of this argument before, that privacy is really about power, and it is compelling: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Moxie Marlinspike makes a similar point that positive social changes, like acceptance of homosexuality or marijuana, require the ability to do socially disapproved things in private. With no privacy, the changes would never happen, because nobody would have been able to, say, privately have a same-sex relationship. https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/ https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/
  • metaloha 9y ago
    The issue at it's most fundamental level is that people are putting things on Facebook (and other social networks) with an expectation of privacy in the first place. If you post something on Facebook, you have in fact decided that you do not have something to hide. I care about my privacy, but everything I've put on Facebook is public as far as I'm concerned. I don't care that they are using that information to profile me and serve ads for things I might like because I posted there with full knowledge of that. If I want something to be private, I don't put it on Facebook (or other social networks).
• jannyfer 9y ago
  I myself didn’t care what information was collected about me. I liked the idea of having a smart digital assistant that knew more about me so I was fine offering up my info. Then I realized that companies tracking me might financially cost me. Maybe it doesn’t happen now, but if an airline knows I really need to get to my mother across the world because they know there’s been a family death, they can charge me more? That thought made it click why I care about privacy.
  • setzer22 9y ago
    This airline example has helped me convince many people that online privacy matters.
• danieltillett 9y ago
  Lots of good responses here so I will add a tangent. I have often wondered what it would be like if we had total openness and everything everyone did and said was recorded and available to everyone. Would it be a nightmare or not?
  • gargravarr 9y ago
    I'm thinking of something along the lines of 'The Invention of Lying' but I don't think I can imagine anything worse...
    • danieltillett 9y ago
      It would certainly be very different. Everybody could lie, but probably nobody would given how easy it would be to check. It is certainly a thought I will explore as the consequences don't appear obvious.
• atonse 9y ago
  I’ve been playing with this analogy for years and used it a few times but I don’t know how effective it is. Imagine you’re having a party with friends. Just a regular party. Now imagine a uniformed policeman says “I’m just going to attend your party hold this tape recorder. Don’t worry about me. You won’t have to interact with me. I’ll just hang out and sit there. You aren’t in trouble at all. I’m doing it in everyone’s house.” Would your behavior change? Would you be slightly nervous? Will people truly let their guard down? That’s exactly what surveillance is. Except we don’t see that cop in the room so it’s hard for us to imagine.
• vhb 9y ago
  I tell them about this study I've read a few years ago: "it's possible accurately to predict divorces 18 months ahead using credit cards history". Then, I explain to them how much do fb/google/verizon knows about them. This is usually enough to get them to understand why privacy is so important.
• rutthenut 9y ago
  Would they like FB, Google, eBay, Apple et al to know which banks they hold accounts with, how often they access them, from PCs and from their phones? Or what religion you may follow? Or your other personal preferences? Would they like such organisations to put together a profile of what they think the person is like, based on the web sites they use, when they use them, what they buy from them and more? And then for those profiles to be used by credit rating organisations, or by employers during recruitment processes, or by customs officials when entering a country? All of the above without your explicit permission, perhaps because someone you know has thought it was ok, and with no verification that their assessment of you is correct?
• ujal 9y ago
  "The Netherlands used to keep track of people’s religion as part of the public records. The intent was noble as always: by keeping track of how many Jews, Catholics, and Protestants there were in a city and its different parts, you would be able to plan for an appropriate amount of synagogues, Protestant churches, and Catholic churches, their proportion to one another, and so on. Then, World War II came around. There were almost no Jews at all in the Netherlands after World War II. According to Wikipedia, less than 10% survived (14,346, compared to an earlier population of 154,887). As it turns out, it was very convenient for the… new administration… to have access to the collected data, and it was indeed used against the citizens, as it always is in the end." --
  • Cthulhu_ 9y ago
    And that is why a proposed Muslim registry is chilling. I don't know for sure, but were census records used to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps in the US in WW2? Or was that based purely on looks?
• known 9y ago
  Will you disclose how much money you've in your bank a/c
• rinchik 9y ago
  "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu
• hprotagonist 9y ago
  “so, show me your deductions on your taxes for the last decade. no reason, really, i’m just curious...”
• acconrad 9y ago
  Just ask them to post their social security number and credit cards.
• 0x4f3759df 9y ago
  Tell people everything is sprayed with pesticides, and they respond "well I have to eat something". Being aware of something isn't much help, they have to take action, so what action is required? Firefox? Linux? Tor? If you enumerated all the steps they need to take, the effort required might start to seem unreasonable.
• petraeus 9y ago
  The most correct answer is in fact, yes I do have something to hide from you. All this reasoning and rationalizing is a distraction from that main point. I have stuff I dont want other people to know, and there is nothing wrong with that.
• duckMuppet 9y ago
  I'd ask you what are you trying to hide.. Seriously though, this is a good read that still rings true. The author does a lot with both privacy and surveillance.. https://www.danielsolove.com/nothing-to-hide/ https://www.danielsolove.com/nothing-to-hide/
• originalsimba 9y ago
  You're wasting your time arguing with people like that. Explain the facts and if they choose to stand naked in the street wearing a "kick me" sign then that's their choice. (just an expression)
• rabboRubble 9y ago
  I always say "Oh, you might not, but some day somebody you love might find themselves in trouble, and your transparency may harm them. Example, if your kid says they were with you as an alibi when accused of a crime, but your Facebook profile says you were in Hawaii, your kid might be in serious trouble. We also know that the government has stated in Congressional hearings they make networks of 6 degrees of separation. You might not be doing anything wrong but just happen to find yourself 2 degrees removed from a major child porn investigation. God forbid the way you connect to those awful people seems interesting to prosecutors. They will be so far up your backside, you will be tasting the law. Even if you are innocent, your life will be ruined with legal fees and you will be shunned by your community. This is my worst case scenario."
• ergodic 9y ago
  IMO the economical argument is the most robust. I see it like this: There is a big margin between 1) the amount of information that you are legally obligated to provide to public and private sectors 2) the amount information that can be mined about you through facebook and other services (+smart data-crunching) Safeguarding that information that falls between 2 and 1 is not a matter of moral standpoints or having something to hide. It has only to do with a properly informed rational decision about your personal economy and your well being. That information that you are willfully leaking will weaken your position in any future negotiation including, financial credit, insurance and employment among others. After Cambridge Analytica it is more clear than ever that it will also weaken your ability to protect yourself against well armed psychological manipulation. and that is all assuming that public and private institutions do not make mistakes, that legal boundaries and procedures are flawless and that you leave in a well executed democracy.
• rajacombinator 9y ago
  In this day and age you should be able to convince them pretty easily by saying imagine Trump/Hillary (choose according to their anti preference) has access to this data and uses it to surpress dissent.
• davimack 9y ago
  I would ask whether they would like a future employer to know they'd Googled the address of a Marijuana dispensary. Or their employer to know that they'd looked at [insert kink here] porn.