4 ms·
> Some of the most outspoken skeptics of privacy protections in her class — the ones who once suggested that they didn't need privacy because they had nothing t
by _cs2017_ 8y ago
> Some of the most outspoken skeptics of privacy protections in her class — the ones who once suggested that they didn't need privacy because they had nothing to hide — were stunned at how quickly they'd found out details of the lives of strangers who happened to cross their paths.
I don't think I understand this.
A person says they don't need privacy because "they have nothing to hide". Then they are shown how easy it is to track / identify someone. Why should it affect their views on privacy? After all, they claim not to care about being tracked or identified in the first place.
- alain94040 8y agoLet's say you think you have nothing to hide, your life is boring. Then you find out details about strangers, and you start judging them based on what you found out. (Oh, they don't exercise much -- they must be lazy). Then it dawns on you: others will see the details of your boring life and will judge you and reach conclusions about you that are likely to be wrong. Because, guess what? They don't really know you. They are just using some datapoints they found on the Internet.
- _cs2017_ 8y agoAh yeah, this makes sense - thanks!
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoAnd then you stop judging people so much?
- _cs2017_ 8y agoI'd love to see that but I don't have my hopes high :)
- Angostura 8y ago> Why should it affect their views on privacy? Because people often think one thing about abstract possibilities and then have their minds concentrated once presented with tangible examples that effect them.
- ataturk 8y agoPeople in East Germany weren't safe just because they had nothing to hide. They had neighbors who didn't like them turning them in, they had agents with quotas, and they had all kinds of other repression making life difficult whether you were party faithful or not.