4 ms·

I always used a series of arguments on the "I've got nothing to hide" mentality. I've always responded, with: "Yes you do. Do you have curtains on your windows

I always used a series of arguments on the "I've got nothing to hide" mentality. I've always responded, with: "Yes you do. Do you have curtains on your windows? Do you wear clothes? If you don't care about privacy, open your curtains and walk down the street naked." But the fact is that apathy is so high, that people don't give a damn when they're installing some app -- we're too focused on getting what we want (at that moment in time), and really not caring about sending up personal details to the cloud. When I try to talk about apps (eg Messenger, WhatsApp) that requires access to the contact list -- everyone I've spoken to really don't care. They don't care that my details are sent to some company (FB) because they want to use WhatsApp. When I try to talk about state level surveillance, I try to liken it to some sleazy guy taking photos up a woman's dress. It's wrong, no matter how you go about it. Just because I'm "in public" in no way suggests that I should be subjected to a "fully exposed" surveillance system. The same goes for the internet. Of course, this last part is non-legal rhetoric of mine, but I genuinely feel that if I think that I should have an expectation to privacy, regardless of my location, then the civil and polite thing to do is to respect that. State level surveillance all too easily disregards civility and politeness in the pursuit of their goals.

godelski 8y ago
I've had better success talking about hackers and foreign agents. Which are also a real threat. But if people are quoting Goebbels they probably don't think an evil person that would use these tools would rise to power. But when explaining how foreign governments and hackers can use the same tools (because NOTHING is unhackable), people get worried. A simple example: recently there was the article about the DEA and ICE putting cameras in streetlights [0]. It is easy for the common person to understand how such a thing could be hacked and used to stalk someone. But the examples you use should target your audience and illustrate why they personally should be concerned. Because talking about turnkey tyranny is fairly abstract to most people. [0] https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillance-cameras-in-streetlights/ https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillan...

godelski 8y ago

I've had better success talking about hackers and foreign agents. Which are also a real threat. But if people are quoting Goebbels they probably don't think an evil person that would use these tools would rise to power. But when explaining how foreign governments and hackers can use the same tools (because NOTHING is unhackable), people get worried. A simple example: recently there was the article about the DEA and ICE putting cameras in streetlights [0]. It is easy for the common person to understand how such a thing could be hacked and used to stalk someone. But the examples you use should target your audience and illustrate why they personally should be concerned. Because talking about turnkey tyranny is fairly abstract to most people. [0] https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillance-cameras-in-streetlights/ https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillan...