6 ms·

Agreed. I think the audience matters too -- different messages appeal to different people. My dad is one of those old school guys who thinks law enforcement ca

Agreed. I think the audience matters too -- different messages appeal to different people. My dad is one of those old school guys who thinks law enforcement can do no wrong and nobody needs to hide anything unless they're doing something wrong. Even if that were true and I think it is true that many law enforcement personnel are trying to do good, that doesn't always mean the results will always reflect their intentions. When the sample size of facts is too small, as is often the case with mass collection, it's too easy for your sample to get mixed up with someone else's. Maybe your phone is the only other phone in the area when a murder is committed. That doesn't mean you did it, but it sure makes you look like the only suspect. I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I mean, it faces North, so there's no need to block intense sunlight, yet he closes them every night when he's sitting there reading a book or watching TV. Why? He's not doing anything illegal, yet he still doesn't want people watching him. He said he would not be ok with the Police standing at his window all night watching him. That's when he finally understood that digital privacy is not just for criminals, but for everyone who wants to exist in a peaceful state and not a police state.

542354234235 6y ago
> I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I'm not doing anything wrong, but I still close the door when I take a dump. The idea that someone wanting privacy means it is nefarious or wrong is ridiculous.
- ekanes 6y ago
  While crass, that's a great way to put it. Why can't I just want my conversations to be private because eavesdropping without cause is icky. Just like in person.
- dariosalvi78 6y ago
  that would be a nice way to get spies out of our data: flood them with pictures of our dumps :)
  - malandrew 6y ago
    Any sufficiently advanced noise is indistinguishable from signal. (... not saying dumps are advanced noise, but this is on the right track. Don't hide the needle. Produce more haystack)
    - ricksharp 6y ago
      Interesting. So instead of an ad blocker, we could have background bots in our browser visiting random urls and clicking on every ad in sight (of course it would need to mimic human UI input). I wonder what affect that would have.
      - Larrikin 6y ago
        The only legitimate ad blocker that has been banned from the chrome store was ad nauseum. It was a thin wrapper over ublock that a click signal to every single ad. You could adjust the intensity (no clicks, some clicks, all), but that was where Google drew the line.
        visarga 6y ago
        Be careful not to get your Google account banned with this.
      - dariosalvi78 6y ago
        this was made by an acquaintance: http://martinnadal.eu/fango/ http://martinnadal.eu/fango/
- nearbuy 6y ago
  I never found this type of argument satisfying. It's more of an appeal to emotion than a rational reason. In our culture we feel deep embarrassment if someone sees us using the toilet, but this is not universal across people and cultures, and honestly, it shouldn't be embarrassing. There's nothing inherently wrong with pooping. We irrationally feel embarrassment when we shouldn't have to. This argument doesn't show any negative consequences of invasion of privacy. It's also not clear how it extrapolates to situations that don't involve toilets or nudity. If the problem is embarrassment, and people don't feel embarrassed that Facebook collects data, does that make it okay? Obviously there are other arguments for privacy that do show potential harm. I find these more compelling.
  - fraktl 6y ago
    We shouldn't do many things but we do. If I feel embarrassed, it means I am vulnerable. I want to keep it to myself and I have the right to feel embarrassed, despite it being illogical. Humans aren't perfectly logical beings. If we were, there would be no discussions like this one.
    - acephal 6y ago
      We wouldn't be living things
    - nearbuy 6y ago
      Sure, I don't want to embarrass people. We should try to accommodate people's feelings. But I don't think it's the strong argument in favour of privacy that we want to make, because: 1. We do give people privacy in the bathroom. The debate is over the data social media companies collect. If people aren't generally embarrassed that Facebook collects data about what they post on Facebook, how does it relate to being embarrassed to be seen on the toilet? 2. Do we always have to accommodate irrational feelings? What about people who are easily offended by things that things that most would consider non-offensive? Is it immoral for a child to dress as a clown on halloween given that some people have coulrophobia? If you're arguing with someone who believes law enforcement should have access to people's social media and you bring up that stuff posted on social media could be embarrassing, the obvious response is, "Well, too bad. Investigating crimes is more important."
- notriddle 6y ago
  That's not really the same thing. I close the door to the toilet because other people don't want to see it. I close the blinds when reading a book because they do want to see it.
- greggman3 6y ago
  My dad doesn't close the door when he take a dump. That's the way he was raised and so that's how he does it.
ajb 6y ago
I went to a debate once, in which the former head of GCHQ (British equivalent of the NSA) argued that because agents weren't literally listening to people's phone calls, like the Stazi did, mass digital surveillance is fine. And unfortunately for many people this argument works. Human eavesdropping is obviously a problem at a viceral level, because somebody you don't know listening to you is frightening. The fact that digital surveillance gives power to its possessor just as much as human surveillance did is hard to get across.
- class4behavior 6y ago
  Privacy is about control and power over your own existence and choices—just that its impact is usually long-term and most profound on a societal level but it starts at the most trivial aspects of life, like being able to sleep in safe, quiet place without any fear. So if data aggregation about you is automated, you still lose that control. When an employer, for instance, is able to request data aggregation services for a break down about your entire life without or with forced consent from you, or able to monitor and analyze every step of yours during working hours, it's dehumanizing. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether those with access to data regarding you have only good intentions. It may be pleasing to have a store know everything you like and need right in the moment, you still should be able to walk in and out (pseudo-)anonymously when you wish to. Same with the state. We say not to talk to the police. In trials the determination what evidence can be submitted is always an important step. So why should the police, prosecution, intelligence agencies, or any other entity be able to access or collect data about you and evaluate it without due process?
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  This is hilariously cynical because GCHQ and the other letter agencies have had automated listening, recording, and analysis systems in place for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
citizenpaul 6y ago
Privacy is simple. The "watcher" always without exception has a massive power imbalance in their favor. The first and often only line of defense against that power imbalance is the right to privacy.

542354234235 6y ago

> I was never able to gain an inch on his argument until I asked him why he has curtains on his living room window. I'm not doing anything wrong, but I still close the door when I take a dump. The idea that someone wanting privacy means it is nefarious or wrong is ridiculous.

ekanes 6y ago
While crass, that's a great way to put it. Why can't I just want my conversations to be private because eavesdropping without cause is icky. Just like in person.
dariosalvi78 6y ago
that would be a nice way to get spies out of our data: flood them with pictures of our dumps :)
- malandrew 6y ago
  Any sufficiently advanced noise is indistinguishable from signal. (... not saying dumps are advanced noise, but this is on the right track. Don't hide the needle. Produce more haystack)
  - ricksharp 6y ago
    Interesting. So instead of an ad blocker, we could have background bots in our browser visiting random urls and clicking on every ad in sight (of course it would need to mimic human UI input). I wonder what affect that would have.
    - Larrikin 6y ago
      The only legitimate ad blocker that has been banned from the chrome store was ad nauseum. It was a thin wrapper over ublock that a click signal to every single ad. You could adjust the intensity (no clicks, some clicks, all), but that was where Google drew the line.
      - visarga 6y ago
        Be careful not to get your Google account banned with this.
    - dariosalvi78 6y ago
      this was made by an acquaintance: http://martinnadal.eu/fango/ http://martinnadal.eu/fango/
nearbuy 6y ago
I never found this type of argument satisfying. It's more of an appeal to emotion than a rational reason. In our culture we feel deep embarrassment if someone sees us using the toilet, but this is not universal across people and cultures, and honestly, it shouldn't be embarrassing. There's nothing inherently wrong with pooping. We irrationally feel embarrassment when we shouldn't have to. This argument doesn't show any negative consequences of invasion of privacy. It's also not clear how it extrapolates to situations that don't involve toilets or nudity. If the problem is embarrassment, and people don't feel embarrassed that Facebook collects data, does that make it okay? Obviously there are other arguments for privacy that do show potential harm. I find these more compelling.
- fraktl 6y ago
  We shouldn't do many things but we do. If I feel embarrassed, it means I am vulnerable. I want to keep it to myself and I have the right to feel embarrassed, despite it being illogical. Humans aren't perfectly logical beings. If we were, there would be no discussions like this one.
  - acephal 6y ago
    We wouldn't be living things
  - nearbuy 6y ago
    Sure, I don't want to embarrass people. We should try to accommodate people's feelings. But I don't think it's the strong argument in favour of privacy that we want to make, because: 1. We do give people privacy in the bathroom. The debate is over the data social media companies collect. If people aren't generally embarrassed that Facebook collects data about what they post on Facebook, how does it relate to being embarrassed to be seen on the toilet? 2. Do we always have to accommodate irrational feelings? What about people who are easily offended by things that things that most would consider non-offensive? Is it immoral for a child to dress as a clown on halloween given that some people have coulrophobia? If you're arguing with someone who believes law enforcement should have access to people's social media and you bring up that stuff posted on social media could be embarrassing, the obvious response is, "Well, too bad. Investigating crimes is more important."
notriddle 6y ago
That's not really the same thing. I close the door to the toilet because other people don't want to see it. I close the blinds when reading a book because they do want to see it.
greggman3 6y ago
My dad doesn't close the door when he take a dump. That's the way he was raised and so that's how he does it.

ajb 6y ago

I went to a debate once, in which the former head of GCHQ (British equivalent of the NSA) argued that because agents weren't literally listening to people's phone calls, like the Stazi did, mass digital surveillance is fine. And unfortunately for many people this argument works. Human eavesdropping is obviously a problem at a viceral level, because somebody you don't know listening to you is frightening. The fact that digital surveillance gives power to its possessor just as much as human surveillance did is hard to get across.

class4behavior 6y ago
Privacy is about control and power over your own existence and choices—just that its impact is usually long-term and most profound on a societal level but it starts at the most trivial aspects of life, like being able to sleep in safe, quiet place without any fear. So if data aggregation about you is automated, you still lose that control. When an employer, for instance, is able to request data aggregation services for a break down about your entire life without or with forced consent from you, or able to monitor and analyze every step of yours during working hours, it's dehumanizing. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether those with access to data regarding you have only good intentions. It may be pleasing to have a store know everything you like and need right in the moment, you still should be able to walk in and out (pseudo-)anonymously when you wish to. Same with the state. We say not to talk to the police. In trials the determination what evidence can be submitted is always an important step. So why should the police, prosecution, intelligence agencies, or any other entity be able to access or collect data about you and evaluate it without due process?
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
This is hilariously cynical because GCHQ and the other letter agencies have had automated listening, recording, and analysis systems in place for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

citizenpaul 6y ago

Privacy is simple. The "watcher" always without exception has a massive power imbalance in their favor. The first and often only line of defense against that power imbalance is the right to privacy.