3 ms·

I usually say something to the tune of "everyone has something to hide, that's why we put clothes on; that's why we don't go around broadcasting our medical tes

by idop 7y ago

I usually say something to the tune of "everyone has something to hide, that's why we put clothes on; that's why we don't go around broadcasting our medical test results; that's why we don't reveal our salaries and benefits to our colleagues (or anyone); that's why we don't give our address to anyone that asks for it. It doesn't mean we've done something bad or we're criminals, it just means we're human. But if you have a gmail account, you've probably given one of the world's largest corporation all this knowledge." Usually the medical test thing is enough to shut them up. Anyway there are many such example arguments around the internet, just DuckDuckGo "nothing to hide". There's even a Wikipedia article about it [1]. Edit: Oh, I often give Uber's deleted posts about how they know their users had one-night stands as an example too. See [2] and [3] for one of the deleted posts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument [2] https://money.cnn.com/2014/11/25/technology/uber-prostitutes/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2014/11/25/technology/uber-prostitutes... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20140827195715/http://blog.uber.com/ridesofglory https://web.archive.org/web/20140827195715/http://blog.uber....

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ebg13 7y ago
Your links are truncated.
- idop 7y ago
  Oops, my bad, fixed.
king-rat 7y ago
Neither of the links to deleted blog posts appear to be working
skizm 7y ago
These arguments are exactly why most people I meet say they don't care how much info they give to random apps. They assume since Google has all the info already anyway, why should they care if one more nameless faceless corp gets it? Plus companies have had all this personal data for a long time now and nothing bad has happened. The only argument I've had even a little success with is "it makes it easier for identity thieves to get and use your CC / bank info". That usually get a pause before "oh well my bank has fraud protection".
- idop 7y ago
  I feel it's very easy to counter this argument too. A person can choose to trust specific persons/organizations/governments with their personal information. For example they'll share secrets with some friends but not with all of them. But from there to go to "oh well I've given it to one <insert entity here> I might as well just give it to all of them" is very naive and I would even say defeatist.
  - skizm 7y ago
    Defeatist in what sense though? No one I've spoken to feels "defeated" by paying for social media with their data. Most people have experienced exactly zero negative consequences for giving out all their personal info in exchange for access to social media or whatever app is currently popular. So why bother fighting every app for control of info that's already out there and has caused no harm in the past?
    - idop 7y ago
      I definitely agree with this, although even for the "zero negative consequences" argument I usually counter with "one of your friends loaded all their contacts into some app that shows them who's calling them, and now you're bombarded with text messages offering you black market loans, tons of marketing calls, etc." (which is actually true in Israel). Anyway, I was going with "defeatist" mostly because it reminded me of an attitude I personally sometimes display when it comes to being overweight: "I already ate above my maintenance window today, I might as well just eat everything in the pantry and fridge and order some family-size pizzas". So, "I've already failed once, might as well keep failing."
  - somatic 7y ago
    The average person does not understand the implications of their actions vis-à-vis IT companies and their personal information. Moreover, their actions do not affect only themselves, but also all of the people with whom they regularly interact, regardless of whether or not those people themselves have “chosen” to “opt in”. There is only one solution to this problem, and it is political in nature.
thetrainfold 7y ago
Side note, but sharing salaries with colleagues is actually a good idea, due to the unfairness that can arise from salaries being kept secret. Example article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/smarter-living/pay-secrecy-national-labor-rights-act.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/smarter-living/pay-secrec...
- idop 7y ago
  Interesting article and interesting opinion. I particularly like this quote: "Employers can get away with paying workers less when those workers don’t talk about money." I find it to be very true.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by idop 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ebg13 7y ago

Your links are truncated.

idop 7y ago
Oops, my bad, fixed.

king-rat 7y ago

Neither of the links to deleted blog posts appear to be working

skizm 7y ago

These arguments are exactly why most people I meet say they don't care how much info they give to random apps. They assume since Google has all the info already anyway, why should they care if one more nameless faceless corp gets it? Plus companies have had all this personal data for a long time now and nothing bad has happened. The only argument I've had even a little success with is "it makes it easier for identity thieves to get and use your CC / bank info". That usually get a pause before "oh well my bank has fraud protection".

idop 7y ago
I feel it's very easy to counter this argument too. A person can choose to trust specific persons/organizations/governments with their personal information. For example they'll share secrets with some friends but not with all of them. But from there to go to "oh well I've given it to one <insert entity here> I might as well just give it to all of them" is very naive and I would even say defeatist.
- skizm 7y ago
  Defeatist in what sense though? No one I've spoken to feels "defeated" by paying for social media with their data. Most people have experienced exactly zero negative consequences for giving out all their personal info in exchange for access to social media or whatever app is currently popular. So why bother fighting every app for control of info that's already out there and has caused no harm in the past?
  - idop 7y ago
    I definitely agree with this, although even for the "zero negative consequences" argument I usually counter with "one of your friends loaded all their contacts into some app that shows them who's calling them, and now you're bombarded with text messages offering you black market loans, tons of marketing calls, etc." (which is actually true in Israel). Anyway, I was going with "defeatist" mostly because it reminded me of an attitude I personally sometimes display when it comes to being overweight: "I already ate above my maintenance window today, I might as well just eat everything in the pantry and fridge and order some family-size pizzas". So, "I've already failed once, might as well keep failing."
- somatic 7y ago
  The average person does not understand the implications of their actions vis-à-vis IT companies and their personal information. Moreover, their actions do not affect only themselves, but also all of the people with whom they regularly interact, regardless of whether or not those people themselves have “chosen” to “opt in”. There is only one solution to this problem, and it is political in nature.

thetrainfold 7y ago

Side note, but sharing salaries with colleagues is actually a good idea, due to the unfairness that can arise from salaries being kept secret. Example article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/smarter-living/pay-secrecy-national-labor-rights-act.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/smarter-living/pay-secrec...

idop 7y ago
Interesting article and interesting opinion. I particularly like this quote: "Employers can get away with paying workers less when those workers don’t talk about money." I find it to be very true.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]