5 ms·

What bothers me most about this, is how there's even a debate about privacy. While we (western world we) acknowledge the need for privacy and anonymity when it

by cik 5y ago

What bothers me most about this, is how there's even a debate about privacy. While we (western world we) acknowledge the need for privacy and anonymity when it applies to sources in corrupt regimes, depending on politics and time of the day, that same respect for privacy seems fleeting. Children are always likely to learn something about themselves that displeases their parents. This can be anywhere from sexual orientation to religious inclinations. As a society we can and should enable this exploration - it only makes for a better outcome. Any society that can ongoingly say that critical thinking has led to the desired outcome is like (IMHO) to succeed and grow. I fail to understand how we've moved from free speech to lack of privacy in such a short period of time. Today in many places, people are arrested for covering their faces in public - though not in the winter where such gear is warranted. People are arrested for expressing views (frequently violently, but not always) that are aligned with many, and abhorrent to others. Privacy would and should allow such exploration. To me this is fundamental we ought be teaching, much like basic finance. Bother are important to get through life, and the ripple effects will be enormous. Clearly I have a bias.

voiper1 5y ago
"Myth #1. “If you did nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." The US supposedly already decided on this in the 4th amendment: "Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It's apparent how authoritarian regimes can abuse this, and it's becoming more common that incompetence or hacking can allow all this information to become public.
- karlkloss 5y ago
  Millions of Germans thought that they had nothing to hide, back in 1930. Until they had. I usually reply to the Myth #1 with "BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!" Really guys, you don't have to know my age, gender, religion, browsing history and klick behavior to sell me a bottle of soda. And for reading a government website or browsing a catalog of goods, you don't need to know aything about me.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    > Millions of Germans thought that they had nothing to hide, back in 1930. Until they had. Well this is just plain a massive rewrite of history. The Nazi's were not in anyway covert about who they were going after, and they enjoyed broad popular support to do it. "Privacy" doesn't mean a whole lot when the actual metric of oppression was "we're going to grab everyone who goes into that church over there".
    - j_4 5y ago
      It is a very valid argument against data collection for the sake of data collection, which is closely related. Can't find the exact source, but there was this story about some French (?) town keeping a list of Jews in their documents, for no real reason. It's a piece of data - better to have it than not, right? Might be useful some day. Nazis certainly thought so when they occupied the town and got hold of the list.
      - XorNot 5y ago
        The Nazi's weren't enabled by a database. They wouldn't have been stopped by the lack of one. And they certainly didn't care whether or not the the people they killed were actually Jews. Fascism targets "the other".
  - cik 5y ago
    Soon, I'm sure it will be illegal to use the various ad blocking, tracking blocking, header alteration, mac address changing, tunnel shifting, and other technologies I both deploy and use. I'm confident that this will happen within my lifetime, which is chilling at best. It's reasons like this that I've started to eliminate what little online footprint my meat-person has now, while I can. At issue is the fact that I cannot delete my HN profile, nor go back and delete posts. I find that troublesome.
- procombo 5y ago
  A great justification my dear goverment uses is that because they don't perform the search directly, (they use third-party private businesses), they aren't violating the law. Of course reasonable people will disagree. There are a lot of motivations for private businesses to collect as much information as they can, just in case they might be able to use it in the future. Thursday of last week a solicitor came up to my door. Didn't knock. Leaned their electric scooter against my house, and was "working" on their tablet. I was just getting home and after parking I passed them and mentioned that I wasn't interested in what they were selling. They said "yeah, I saw the No Soliciting sign so I didn't knock, but they are also having us run a scan." They were completely unaware of how creepy that is and how obtrusive it can be. I played it cool, even though I was irate. They actually showed me the interface and it scanned for wifi and bluetooth devices and recorded ids, etc. My address and photos of my house were on the screen as well. (Public information, I know, but still creepy.) Apparently there's a market for knowing what brand of wireless computing equipment people have on site. Imagine that. They worked for a company selling home security, smart home devices, and bug extermination service. My my. It wasn't every house. They had a queue to go through. Apparently I'm a "valuable" target, people. :)
  - voiper1 5y ago
    I wasn't quoting the US 4th amendment to say it's illegal. Rather to refute the argument "you have nothing to hide" -- the US government was founded with the ideal that it's simply not true. People are entitled to privacy. Simply hand-waving it away requires proof, not the other way.
    - procombo 5y ago
      Certainly. The Constitution is a guide to what the visionary founders had in their mind for the new nation. It shouldn't be law directly, but a light to help citizens realize what a balance of power looks like. In the meantime we want to keep our shoes on at the aiport so we actually pay the government and agree to let them perform ongoing, perpetual background searches on us "to maintain eligibility". :)
- amelius 5y ago
  > "Myth #1. “If you did nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." My usual reply to that is: "ok, what is your salary, and what is in your bank account?"
  - npteljes 5y ago
    What if someone then said "I won't tell you of course, but I don't mind if the bank, tax collectors, the police or the govt knows. They already know everything about everyone anyways. I have nothing to hide from them"
    - binarybanana 5y ago
      Then they're just selective about the hiding and who they trust. They'se still hiding. Instead, ask them if they're fine with surveillance cameras in their home that record them jerking off or taking a shit. Most people wouldn't be happy about that. Most privacy invasions are too subtle and the dangers too abstract to make them care. But almost all agree that cameras in the bathroom is past the line.
      - npteljes 5y ago
        In my experience, they agree to the bathroom example, but don't care enough to realize the double standard with the subtler, more insidious privacy invasions. Kinda even agreeing with it, as long as it means lower prices or some other convenience. This is the fight I don't know how to win unfortunately.
        amelius 5y ago
        Yeah, I have no problem with ignorant people losing the game of evolution, but they are dragging me down with them.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Surveillance of kids is a symptom of parents and schools are vastly overwhelmed and they fail in their duties. It won't be the solution. Actually it won't solve anything.

by cik 5y ago

voiper1 5y ago

"Myth #1. “If you did nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." The US supposedly already decided on this in the 4th amendment: "Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It's apparent how authoritarian regimes can abuse this, and it's becoming more common that incompetence or hacking can allow all this information to become public.

karlkloss 5y ago
Millions of Germans thought that they had nothing to hide, back in 1930. Until they had. I usually reply to the Myth #1 with "BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!" Really guys, you don't have to know my age, gender, religion, browsing history and klick behavior to sell me a bottle of soda. And for reading a government website or browsing a catalog of goods, you don't need to know aything about me.
- XorNot 5y ago
  > Millions of Germans thought that they had nothing to hide, back in 1930. Until they had. Well this is just plain a massive rewrite of history. The Nazi's were not in anyway covert about who they were going after, and they enjoyed broad popular support to do it. "Privacy" doesn't mean a whole lot when the actual metric of oppression was "we're going to grab everyone who goes into that church over there".
  - j_4 5y ago
    It is a very valid argument against data collection for the sake of data collection, which is closely related. Can't find the exact source, but there was this story about some French (?) town keeping a list of Jews in their documents, for no real reason. It's a piece of data - better to have it than not, right? Might be useful some day. Nazis certainly thought so when they occupied the town and got hold of the list.
    - XorNot 5y ago
      The Nazi's weren't enabled by a database. They wouldn't have been stopped by the lack of one. And they certainly didn't care whether or not the the people they killed were actually Jews. Fascism targets "the other".
- cik 5y ago
  Soon, I'm sure it will be illegal to use the various ad blocking, tracking blocking, header alteration, mac address changing, tunnel shifting, and other technologies I both deploy and use. I'm confident that this will happen within my lifetime, which is chilling at best. It's reasons like this that I've started to eliminate what little online footprint my meat-person has now, while I can. At issue is the fact that I cannot delete my HN profile, nor go back and delete posts. I find that troublesome.
procombo 5y ago
A great justification my dear goverment uses is that because they don't perform the search directly, (they use third-party private businesses), they aren't violating the law. Of course reasonable people will disagree. There are a lot of motivations for private businesses to collect as much information as they can, just in case they might be able to use it in the future. Thursday of last week a solicitor came up to my door. Didn't knock. Leaned their electric scooter against my house, and was "working" on their tablet. I was just getting home and after parking I passed them and mentioned that I wasn't interested in what they were selling. They said "yeah, I saw the No Soliciting sign so I didn't knock, but they are also having us run a scan." They were completely unaware of how creepy that is and how obtrusive it can be. I played it cool, even though I was irate. They actually showed me the interface and it scanned for wifi and bluetooth devices and recorded ids, etc. My address and photos of my house were on the screen as well. (Public information, I know, but still creepy.) Apparently there's a market for knowing what brand of wireless computing equipment people have on site. Imagine that. They worked for a company selling home security, smart home devices, and bug extermination service. My my. It wasn't every house. They had a queue to go through. Apparently I'm a "valuable" target, people. :)
- voiper1 5y ago
  I wasn't quoting the US 4th amendment to say it's illegal. Rather to refute the argument "you have nothing to hide" -- the US government was founded with the ideal that it's simply not true. People are entitled to privacy. Simply hand-waving it away requires proof, not the other way.
  - procombo 5y ago
    Certainly. The Constitution is a guide to what the visionary founders had in their mind for the new nation. It shouldn't be law directly, but a light to help citizens realize what a balance of power looks like. In the meantime we want to keep our shoes on at the aiport so we actually pay the government and agree to let them perform ongoing, perpetual background searches on us "to maintain eligibility". :)
amelius 5y ago
> "Myth #1. “If you did nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." My usual reply to that is: "ok, what is your salary, and what is in your bank account?"
- npteljes 5y ago
  What if someone then said "I won't tell you of course, but I don't mind if the bank, tax collectors, the police or the govt knows. They already know everything about everyone anyways. I have nothing to hide from them"
  - binarybanana 5y ago
    Then they're just selective about the hiding and who they trust. They'se still hiding. Instead, ask them if they're fine with surveillance cameras in their home that record them jerking off or taking a shit. Most people wouldn't be happy about that. Most privacy invasions are too subtle and the dangers too abstract to make them care. But almost all agree that cameras in the bathroom is past the line.
    - npteljes 5y ago
      In my experience, they agree to the bathroom example, but don't care enough to realize the double standard with the subtler, more insidious privacy invasions. Kinda even agreeing with it, as long as it means lower prices or some other convenience. This is the fight I don't know how to win unfortunately.
      - amelius 5y ago
        Yeah, I have no problem with ignorant people losing the game of evolution, but they are dragging me down with them.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Surveillance of kids is a symptom of parents and schools are vastly overwhelmed and they fail in their duties. It won't be the solution. Actually it won't solve anything.