7 ms·

Someone needs to always immediately follow up with questions asking people who want others to give up their privacy to give theirs up first in turn. “Could I p

Someone needs to always immediately follow up with questions asking people who want others to give up their privacy to give theirs up first in turn. “Could I please get all of your phone records, browsing history, Internet account credentials, details of your friends and family, and anything else that you wouldn’t want me to have but legal for me to have so long as you provide it to me willingly? If the answer is no, then why ask me to give up my privacy when you refuse to give up yours?”

uCantCauseUCant 6y ago
I would- the reason being, that technical progress can not continue before a panopticon is instated. 9/11 proofed that humanity can not be entrusted with a flying car. Problem is, humanity and/or a state can not be entrusted to act reasonable with that data. I have no solution to that dilemma.
Folcon 6y ago
I'm not sure that's always a good start to a line of questioning? Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you have for yourself or your family?". Their answer to that might be a better starting point? If they don't have any, then at least they would be consistent =)... You can also then discuss what kind of a society comes from that position and whether that's a good one to live in? Alternatively another question is, "do you and your colleagues want to be stewards of this data you collect?" What's an appropriate / reasonable punishment for failing to be good stewards? Jail time? Fines? Personal or organisational? Paying money into charities designed to act as public oversight? Starting off combative feels nice, but just gets people's hackles up in my experience =)...
- feanaro 6y ago
  > Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you have for yourself or your family?". I feel like some people flippantly respond "none" to this, which they can afford because they are not expecting to really be compelled to give away their personal information on the spot. The response suggested by the OP would give them an opportunity to prove their position immediately.
  - Folcon 6y ago
    That's true, but starting the question on that basis and also framing the question around it is important. The public / audience of the debate need to be constantly reminded that these rules apply to them as well and they need to ask themselves, what am I comfortable with living under? Do I trust this administration? The current law enforcement? Forever? What could they do to me or my family if we suddenly become persona non grata? To be honest even under this system people can reason that this is just giving the police etc powers, so even then their "privacy" isn't really at risk. They aren't necessarily thinking that: - data can be leaked - data could be sold - you can get malicious officers - the data can be used for other purposes - etc These are the other parts of the conversation that need to also be thought about because otherwise this is just another security blanket.
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    My answer, since I love to play devil's advocate, would be, "No, you can't have any of that information, because I only trust governments and corporations with it!" Then watch them twitch a little.
- tareqak 6y ago
  Your phrasing is definitely a better initial starting point. I do think that my phrasing has its place if a non-answer is given after the second or third time. Your follow-up questions are great too. This sort of dialog / FAQ for “what do you have to hide” needs to be available somewhere online with a catchy URI e.g. https://privacymatters.org https://privacymatters.org (I don’t know if this is real just an example).
  - Folcon 6y ago
    Definitely agree that your stronger take is needed if people say none. But that's why in my opinion, a question about what society people are looking to live in is important. We can start to draw out what people are and aren't comfortable with. Personally I think that in addition to websites, more media needs to be available for the public to discuss this topic more and get a feel for it. EG: Mr Robot raised some questions about whether the hacking and casual discovery of personal information they were showing was realistic. Perhaps "Man in the High Castle", I've not seen it, so not sure if it covers the notion of the nation state turning hostile and then leveraging collected information to attack specific citizens, but something along those lines. Also things like the munk debates to foster discussion. In my experience media does a much better job of getting people to empathise with different circumstances which would get them really thinking what these things might mean for them.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  They’re probably not the best people to be asking that question anyway. Police, politicians, and especially anybody who works in a national security role, are all people who have already accepted living with seriously diminished privacy in order to do their jobs. It’s also not terribly surprising the journalists are mostly rather delinquent when it comes to privacy controversies, as privacy gets in the way of a journalist doing their job as often as it does a police officer.
  - Folcon 6y ago
    This is a really good point and I'm not sure how to really tackle it other than ask if they're also comfortable with the same being true for their families as well as themselves? There were cases where lack of privacy for public figures family members have caused issues[0][1]. I don't want to focus on that specific story, it's just an example. This might be a case where people are happy about that information being public? Or maybe they have a more nuanced take? For example, report that it happened, but don't print their name / picture? (for example both articles below did name, but only nytimes seems to have also done picture) Where you draw the lines on this stuff can be really important. - [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/george-floyd-protests-new-york-city-bill-de-blasio-daughter-chiara-a9542541.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... - [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio...
dmurray 6y ago
You don't have a symmetrical relationship with the government. Do you ask the IRS every year "can you please send me 25% of all the money you collected this year? If not, why ask me to give up mine?" I'm in favour of strong privacy protections, but this argument isn't one I find convincing.
- Renaud 6y ago
  The trick is maybe not to expect it from the government but from those who work in it. Everyone has something that can be used against them. If not legally, at least as leverage, blackmail or just to impersonate or humiliate. Enough to destroy someone's reputation, livelihood, family, life.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  Why can I not be pissed off at my government abusing my data? We should also be pissed off at the insanely wasteful spending that the federal government does as well.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    You can resent paying tax, and argue that you should pay less tax or that your tax money should be spent more effectively. But arguing that the government has no right to extract taxation is...fringe, let's say. In the same way, arguing that the government has absolutely no right to information you would prefer to keep private is not compelling. Better to demand limitations on what data can collect and what it can do with that data.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The problem is that too many people have a world view wherein government can do no wrong or never does enough wrong to matter. That world view (or massive amounts of cognitive dissonance) is a necessary prerequisite for being willing to tolerate this kind of government invasion or privacy. Making these people uncomfortable with giving the government all that info will just move them from the naive camp to the cognitive dissonance camp. Other than actually experiencing significant government abuse I don't think anything will change these people's minds. Political ideology is like a religion these days.
lwkl 6y ago
Quote of my coworker about why he doesn’t want to vote yes on a referendum to overturn a law that expands our intelligence agencies rights for surveillance with oversight from a single judge and no transparency and accountability: „As long as they catch at least one of these assholes, I don‘t care about me being surveilled. You will understand this when you become a father.“ This opened my eyes most people have an irrational fear and think that these capabilities won‘t be abused. At the same time our state abused their surveillance capabilities during the cold war and gathered data on almost a million people. But people seem to have forgotten already. I‘m talking about Switzerland if you are wondering what which of authoritarian regime I‘m talking about.
- scotty79 6y ago
  You can get them thinking by making them realize that more than one of the assholes they are afraid of will be hired there and will have access to their and their kids most private data.
- sneak 6y ago
  It’s astounding how many ordinary regular humans want a father or a big brother to take the responsibility of looking after them and keeping them safe. The world is a scary place. The problem is that it doesn’t become less so by giving up your privacy, it becomes more so. The world bought the idea that privacy and security are at odds, and that by giving up one, you gain the other. It’s the biggest lie of our generation. I hope I don’t live to see the chickens coming home to roost. It’s happening in China and Russia, and what happened to Assange is a preview of what will eventually happen in the USA.
  - sdoering 6y ago
    Eventually? You mean already is happening. It has started. But that only as a side note. The "problem" is, that there is not one universal "freedom". Freedom is many concepts packaged into one single word. Coming from Germany, I still remember the division by the Iron Curtain. Having lived on the western side few miles from the border and having talked to a lot of former GDR people (my father fled with his parents before the wall was build when he was still a little kid) during the years I came to understand two totally different forms of "freedom" at play in the different regimes: A lot of people in the east got away with critizizing their bosses and sometimes even becoming physical. Up to a certain point they even got away with being somewhat critical to the system and the problems within the system. In the west people got away with critizising the state quite well, while it became problematic to critique your bosses at your workplace. I know a lot of people in my father's generation who got fired for pointing out flaws in their workplace. We were able to travel to a lot of places (once we were well off enough to afford it). While my parents still struggled to pay for me being able to attend sport clubs. My while my SO's parents (she was born few years before the wall fell in the eastern part of Germany) were only ever able to travel to the east German coast, other eastern countries like Slowakia or what is now the Czech Republik, Romania or Bulgaria, Russia or Cuba (and they were by far less well off than my western German parents). I don't imply one system was better, one was worse. Well yes I do - the GDR was worse. But what I wanted to show is, that there are different kind of "freedoms" and that is just one example. Every form of freddom comes with inherent trade-offs. Because of preferences, personal values and said trade-offs other people tend to prefere different kinds of freedoms (while maybe not grasping that their choices impact others - like a tragedy of the commons thing). They seem to have a different hierarchy of what is important to them - and decide based on that. Be it in Germany, the US or as OP pointed out in Switzerland.
muzani 6y ago
My standard response to telemarketers is, "I'm at work now. Could you give me your phone number and I'll call you back tonight?" They always get offended at the idea of me calling them at their personal number.
- Simon_says 6y ago
  Isn’t that an old Seinfeld bit?
  - muzani 6y ago
    It might be, but I got the idea from a colleague.
gchamonlive 6y ago
There is power imbalance there. Even if they agree with it, what you can do with their private data is not the same as what they can do with yours.
youShould9 6y ago
You should volunteer yourself to be the change you want to see in the world rather than sit on your hands for Superman to do it. You are a part of the system that does this. This is irresponsible deflecting. This community champions & builds these systems and puts it on others to challenge their use in society that you also belong to? That’s incredibly frustrating and disheartening. I know literally you’re one person. But this a broadly shared ignorance. Your lack of character to have these simple conversations where they need to happen, scaled across the population is why society is where it is. Why should anyone else come to your rescue?
- salawat 6y ago
  The issue is there is a non-trivial portion of even industry insiders who buy into the "nothing to hide" rhetoric. I can't count the number of team outings I've had these conversations and get stonewalled on "Well, just be a Luddite then." I figured it's some sort of Upton Sinclairism, but most of them weren't even relying on it for a paycheck, and saw someone complaining about (for example) someone being nervous about the use of voice assistants like Google Home, Siri, Cortana, or Alexa around them, and wishing to have those devices turned off burdensome, or unreasonable even if broached politely. Do not seem to have that issue with people historically targeted by governments though.
api 6y ago
They usually respond by just whipping out a thought stopper like “pedophiles.”
gambiting 6y ago
Well I have done this in the past to people I know who say they have "nothing to hide" and the answer they give is super simple - "I'm happy to provide all of the above and more to law enforcement agencies at any point. I don't have any problem with authority and I don't understand why you do.". You can then explain that the data does get misused, but they always just say that it won't happen to them or if they do get in a hairy situation they will always explain themselves since after all they have nothing to hide.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  The (unlikely) fact the person has done nothing wrong seems to be an irrelevancy: an immoral government will target per anyway. See model-citizen Uyghurs becoming targeted by the Chinese government just for being Uyghurs.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Well the example I like to give is that pre WW2 many countries gathered completely normal census data, but of course during WW2 Nazis used it to find out exactly where Jews lived. So the data was collected with perfectly good intentions and it was then used to kill people. To which of course all I hear is "Well yes, but that's not going to happen to the UK, so I don't think it's important"
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      On the one hand antisemitism is definitely a massive, deep issue in the Labour party. On the other hand there's no way Jews could be systematically targeted in the future.
- codazoda 6y ago
  I'm starting to create a list of abuses that have happened to people who have "nothing to hide". Are there any examples from the community here?
- alpaca128 6y ago
gspr 6y ago
Or, if they're of the type that are actually ok with that, then "please install this webcam next to your toilet" usually works. Followed by "what do you have to hide? Surely you're not committing CRIMES in there, are you??"
optimuspaul 6y ago
"give up their privacy" that's a funny phrase because it assumes that privacy was a thing they had in the first place. I am in favor of privacy but I'm not under the delusion that it is something I have ever really had.
Lio 6y ago
What people often forget is that often it's not Big Brother you need to be wary of but Little Brother. That is, low level bureaucrats that work for you local council, your local police force or at your local hospital or telecoms company. People who might actually know you or that you might meet socially. A friend of a friend maybe. These are the people being given access to all your private secrets...

uCantCauseUCant 6y ago

I would- the reason being, that technical progress can not continue before a panopticon is instated. 9/11 proofed that humanity can not be entrusted with a flying car. Problem is, humanity and/or a state can not be entrusted to act reasonable with that data. I have no solution to that dilemma.

Folcon 6y ago

I'm not sure that's always a good start to a line of questioning? Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you have for yourself or your family?". Their answer to that might be a better starting point? If they don't have any, then at least they would be consistent =)... You can also then discuss what kind of a society comes from that position and whether that's a good one to live in? Alternatively another question is, "do you and your colleagues want to be stewards of this data you collect?" What's an appropriate / reasonable punishment for failing to be good stewards? Jail time? Fines? Personal or organisational? Paying money into charities designed to act as public oversight? Starting off combative feels nice, but just gets people's hackles up in my experience =)...

feanaro 6y ago
> Don't get me wrong, I like the reasoning, but perhaps, "what expectations of privacy do you have for yourself or your family?". I feel like some people flippantly respond "none" to this, which they can afford because they are not expecting to really be compelled to give away their personal information on the spot. The response suggested by the OP would give them an opportunity to prove their position immediately.
- Folcon 6y ago
  That's true, but starting the question on that basis and also framing the question around it is important. The public / audience of the debate need to be constantly reminded that these rules apply to them as well and they need to ask themselves, what am I comfortable with living under? Do I trust this administration? The current law enforcement? Forever? What could they do to me or my family if we suddenly become persona non grata? To be honest even under this system people can reason that this is just giving the police etc powers, so even then their "privacy" isn't really at risk. They aren't necessarily thinking that: - data can be leaked - data could be sold - you can get malicious officers - the data can be used for other purposes - etc These are the other parts of the conversation that need to also be thought about because otherwise this is just another security blanket.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  My answer, since I love to play devil's advocate, would be, "No, you can't have any of that information, because I only trust governments and corporations with it!" Then watch them twitch a little.
tareqak 6y ago
Your phrasing is definitely a better initial starting point. I do think that my phrasing has its place if a non-answer is given after the second or third time. Your follow-up questions are great too. This sort of dialog / FAQ for “what do you have to hide” needs to be available somewhere online with a catchy URI e.g. https://privacymatters.org https://privacymatters.org (I don’t know if this is real just an example).
- Folcon 6y ago
  Definitely agree that your stronger take is needed if people say none. But that's why in my opinion, a question about what society people are looking to live in is important. We can start to draw out what people are and aren't comfortable with. Personally I think that in addition to websites, more media needs to be available for the public to discuss this topic more and get a feel for it. EG: Mr Robot raised some questions about whether the hacking and casual discovery of personal information they were showing was realistic. Perhaps "Man in the High Castle", I've not seen it, so not sure if it covers the notion of the nation state turning hostile and then leveraging collected information to attack specific citizens, but something along those lines. Also things like the munk debates to foster discussion. In my experience media does a much better job of getting people to empathise with different circumstances which would get them really thinking what these things might mean for them.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
They’re probably not the best people to be asking that question anyway. Police, politicians, and especially anybody who works in a national security role, are all people who have already accepted living with seriously diminished privacy in order to do their jobs. It’s also not terribly surprising the journalists are mostly rather delinquent when it comes to privacy controversies, as privacy gets in the way of a journalist doing their job as often as it does a police officer.
- Folcon 6y ago
  This is a really good point and I'm not sure how to really tackle it other than ask if they're also comfortable with the same being true for their families as well as themselves? There were cases where lack of privacy for public figures family members have caused issues[0][1]. I don't want to focus on that specific story, it's just an example. This might be a case where people are happy about that information being public? Or maybe they have a more nuanced take? For example, report that it happened, but don't print their name / picture? (for example both articles below did name, but only nytimes seems to have also done picture) Where you draw the lines on this stuff can be really important. - [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/george-floyd-protests-new-york-city-bill-de-blasio-daughter-chiara-a9542541.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... - [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/01/nyregion/chiara-de-blasio...

dmurray 6y ago

You don't have a symmetrical relationship with the government. Do you ask the IRS every year "can you please send me 25% of all the money you collected this year? If not, why ask me to give up mine?" I'm in favour of strong privacy protections, but this argument isn't one I find convincing.

Renaud 6y ago
The trick is maybe not to expect it from the government but from those who work in it. Everyone has something that can be used against them. If not legally, at least as leverage, blackmail or just to impersonate or humiliate. Enough to destroy someone's reputation, livelihood, family, life.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Dirlewanger 6y ago
Why can I not be pissed off at my government abusing my data? We should also be pissed off at the insanely wasteful spending that the federal government does as well.
- dmurray 6y ago
  You can resent paying tax, and argue that you should pay less tax or that your tax money should be spent more effectively. But arguing that the government has no right to extract taxation is...fringe, let's say. In the same way, arguing that the government has absolutely no right to information you would prefer to keep private is not compelling. Better to demand limitations on what data can collect and what it can do with that data.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

The problem is that too many people have a world view wherein government can do no wrong or never does enough wrong to matter. That world view (or massive amounts of cognitive dissonance) is a necessary prerequisite for being willing to tolerate this kind of government invasion or privacy. Making these people uncomfortable with giving the government all that info will just move them from the naive camp to the cognitive dissonance camp. Other than actually experiencing significant government abuse I don't think anything will change these people's minds. Political ideology is like a religion these days.

lwkl 6y ago

Quote of my coworker about why he doesn’t want to vote yes on a referendum to overturn a law that expands our intelligence agencies rights for surveillance with oversight from a single judge and no transparency and accountability: „As long as they catch at least one of these assholes, I don‘t care about me being surveilled. You will understand this when you become a father.“ This opened my eyes most people have an irrational fear and think that these capabilities won‘t be abused. At the same time our state abused their surveillance capabilities during the cold war and gathered data on almost a million people. But people seem to have forgotten already. I‘m talking about Switzerland if you are wondering what which of authoritarian regime I‘m talking about.

scotty79 6y ago
You can get them thinking by making them realize that more than one of the assholes they are afraid of will be hired there and will have access to their and their kids most private data.
sneak 6y ago
It’s astounding how many ordinary regular humans want a father or a big brother to take the responsibility of looking after them and keeping them safe. The world is a scary place. The problem is that it doesn’t become less so by giving up your privacy, it becomes more so. The world bought the idea that privacy and security are at odds, and that by giving up one, you gain the other. It’s the biggest lie of our generation. I hope I don’t live to see the chickens coming home to roost. It’s happening in China and Russia, and what happened to Assange is a preview of what will eventually happen in the USA.
- sdoering 6y ago
  Eventually? You mean already is happening. It has started. But that only as a side note. The "problem" is, that there is not one universal "freedom". Freedom is many concepts packaged into one single word. Coming from Germany, I still remember the division by the Iron Curtain. Having lived on the western side few miles from the border and having talked to a lot of former GDR people (my father fled with his parents before the wall was build when he was still a little kid) during the years I came to understand two totally different forms of "freedom" at play in the different regimes: A lot of people in the east got away with critizizing their bosses and sometimes even becoming physical. Up to a certain point they even got away with being somewhat critical to the system and the problems within the system. In the west people got away with critizising the state quite well, while it became problematic to critique your bosses at your workplace. I know a lot of people in my father's generation who got fired for pointing out flaws in their workplace. We were able to travel to a lot of places (once we were well off enough to afford it). While my parents still struggled to pay for me being able to attend sport clubs. My while my SO's parents (she was born few years before the wall fell in the eastern part of Germany) were only ever able to travel to the east German coast, other eastern countries like Slowakia or what is now the Czech Republik, Romania or Bulgaria, Russia or Cuba (and they were by far less well off than my western German parents). I don't imply one system was better, one was worse. Well yes I do - the GDR was worse. But what I wanted to show is, that there are different kind of "freedoms" and that is just one example. Every form of freddom comes with inherent trade-offs. Because of preferences, personal values and said trade-offs other people tend to prefere different kinds of freedoms (while maybe not grasping that their choices impact others - like a tragedy of the commons thing). They seem to have a different hierarchy of what is important to them - and decide based on that. Be it in Germany, the US or as OP pointed out in Switzerland.

muzani 6y ago

My standard response to telemarketers is, "I'm at work now. Could you give me your phone number and I'll call you back tonight?" They always get offended at the idea of me calling them at their personal number.

Simon_says 6y ago
Isn’t that an old Seinfeld bit?
- muzani 6y ago
  It might be, but I got the idea from a colleague.

gchamonlive 6y ago

There is power imbalance there. Even if they agree with it, what you can do with their private data is not the same as what they can do with yours.

youShould9 6y ago

You should volunteer yourself to be the change you want to see in the world rather than sit on your hands for Superman to do it. You are a part of the system that does this. This is irresponsible deflecting. This community champions & builds these systems and puts it on others to challenge their use in society that you also belong to? That’s incredibly frustrating and disheartening. I know literally you’re one person. But this a broadly shared ignorance. Your lack of character to have these simple conversations where they need to happen, scaled across the population is why society is where it is. Why should anyone else come to your rescue?

salawat 6y ago
The issue is there is a non-trivial portion of even industry insiders who buy into the "nothing to hide" rhetoric. I can't count the number of team outings I've had these conversations and get stonewalled on "Well, just be a Luddite then." I figured it's some sort of Upton Sinclairism, but most of them weren't even relying on it for a paycheck, and saw someone complaining about (for example) someone being nervous about the use of voice assistants like Google Home, Siri, Cortana, or Alexa around them, and wishing to have those devices turned off burdensome, or unreasonable even if broached politely. Do not seem to have that issue with people historically targeted by governments though.

api 6y ago

They usually respond by just whipping out a thought stopper like “pedophiles.”

gambiting 6y ago

Well I have done this in the past to people I know who say they have "nothing to hide" and the answer they give is super simple - "I'm happy to provide all of the above and more to law enforcement agencies at any point. I don't have any problem with authority and I don't understand why you do.". You can then explain that the data does get misused, but they always just say that it won't happen to them or if they do get in a hairy situation they will always explain themselves since after all they have nothing to hide.

garbagetime 6y ago
The (unlikely) fact the person has done nothing wrong seems to be an irrelevancy: an immoral government will target per anyway. See model-citizen Uyghurs becoming targeted by the Chinese government just for being Uyghurs.
- gambiting 6y ago
  Well the example I like to give is that pre WW2 many countries gathered completely normal census data, but of course during WW2 Nazis used it to find out exactly where Jews lived. So the data was collected with perfectly good intentions and it was then used to kill people. To which of course all I hear is "Well yes, but that's not going to happen to the UK, so I don't think it's important"
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    On the one hand antisemitism is definitely a massive, deep issue in the Labour party. On the other hand there's no way Jews could be systematically targeted in the future.
codazoda 6y ago
I'm starting to create a list of abuses that have happened to people who have "nothing to hide". Are there any examples from the community here?
alpaca128 6y ago

gspr 6y ago

Or, if they're of the type that are actually ok with that, then "please install this webcam next to your toilet" usually works. Followed by "what do you have to hide? Surely you're not committing CRIMES in there, are you??"

optimuspaul 6y ago

"give up their privacy" that's a funny phrase because it assumes that privacy was a thing they had in the first place. I am in favor of privacy but I'm not under the delusion that it is something I have ever really had.

Lio 6y ago

What people often forget is that often it's not Big Brother you need to be wary of but Little Brother. That is, low level bureaucrats that work for you local council, your local police force or at your local hospital or telecoms company. People who might actually know you or that you might meet socially. A friend of a friend maybe. These are the people being given access to all your private secrets...