5 ms·

Simple response to "I've got nothing to hide" is "alrighty, take off your clothes in front of everyone in this restaurant if you have nothing to hide." It's wo

by junon 5y ago

Simple response to "I've got nothing to hide" is "alrighty, take off your clothes in front of everyone in this restaurant if you have nothing to hide." It's worked a few times for me now (illustrating the point, not getting them naked). Another one is "then why do you shut the curtains at night?" or "why do you lock your front door?" or "do you lock the bathroom door when you're at home with loved ones?" But I feel those don't make as much of an impact and invite snarky responses more than the first one.

MikeUt 5y ago
I don't like those responses, because they fundamentally don't address the issue. What if the person is okay with a trustworthy government agent/system seeing them naked, or having a copy of their house key? This way they won't be embarrassed in public, or get robbed, while the government still gets what it needs to "keep them safe". I think a better response is - what if they did have something to hide? What if they were a government or corporate whistleblower, a human rights lawyer, or a journalist? What if the government changes and suddenly their friendship with a Tibetan sympathizer becomes a liability? What if they're none of those, but due to their carelessness, make whistleblowers stand out because they're the only ones trying to keep some privacy, making them easy to find an retaliate against?
- alpaca128 5y ago
  > what if they did have something to hide? Or, what if something harmless becomes illegal overnight and now it's too late to hide existing links to you? The "nothing to hide" argument relies on the assumption that governments and laws remain stable. Which is obviously far from reality. We have an example of a country getting split in half literally within one night, and right now people are still getting executed for having the wrong religion or sexuality - or, like recently in Afghanistan, because they dared to work as translator for US troops.
  - matz1 5y ago
    >Or, what if something harmless becomes illegal So this is the actual issue then ? Instead of resorting to hiding, should instead fix the root issue: change the law.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      Does surveillance make it easier, or harder, to change unjust law, or an unjust government? Or even learn there are injustices being carried out in the first place? Suppose the people of Hong Kong followed your advice, and had allowed surveillance infrastructure to spread through their city, mapping out everyone's social graphs and political affiliations. Now that a hostile government is in charge of their city, there is no reason to worry the govt. has inherited all the gathered information and knows exactly who to target - if they don't like it, they should fix the root issue and change the law.
      - matz1 5y ago
        The difference with hong kong is the surveillance is one sided, goverment can surveil their citizen but the citizen can't surveil the goverment. The surveillance/transparency has to be on both side. Government can't just do whatever they want if they also being surveilled.
        MikeUt 5y ago
        > Government can't just do whatever they want if they also being surveilled. No? Because it seems to me if you're the one with power, you have a lot less to fear from surveillance, than if you're without. Say there's only one political party allowed (officially or unofficially) - that means it is free to organize and act as a political party, while if you were to try and start your own, you'd be jailed.
        matz1 5y ago
        >Because it seems to me if you're the one with power, So where does their power come from ? Information advantage ? No, if both side has the same information Strength in number? there are more citizen then the government people.
fsflover 5y ago
This is completely missing the point of why one should fight surveillance. Surveillance harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.
- matz1 5y ago
  >making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, Then I much rather for everyone to have no privacy so it level the playing field. I don't have to worry about having to hide stuff.
  - npteljes 5y ago
    You're onto the right idea I think. But the only way for everyone to have the same level of privacy, is to everyone have their privacy. Because since you can achieve privacy, in a world where it would be mandated to have no privacy, the powerful would still have ways to achieve it, while the less powerful wouldn't - and thereby making the world unjust. No level playing field. It's also not you who should be worrying about hiding stuff. That would be the job of everything you use; making sure that they don't get sued or worse for violating your privacy. In the world where privacy is a properly enforced human right, of course.
    - matz1 5y ago
      As technology getting better and better, it becoming more and more difficult to hide information. Imagine smaller and smaller device that can record more and more information and transmit it faster and faster. Information wants to be free. Its simply more pragmatic approach to embrace and adapt to transparency. > the powerful would still have ways to achieve it, while the less powerful wouldn't The imbalance of power come from information asymmetry. e.g The government has more information then the citizen thus they are more powerful but if we strive for transparency for both side then the playing field is leveled. Sure you can do that by privacy for both side but then you are fighting against the progress of technology.
dionidium 5y ago
The phrase, "I have nothing to hide" means more or less, "I don't have anything to hide from authorities who wish to view my data in an official capacity, so I'm willing to cede some privacy in that specific context to those particular actors, if it helps them achieve goals to which I'm sympathetic." Telling someone who says that to prove it by getting naked in a restaurant is a bizarre non sequitur.
- dionidium 5y ago
  Since I've missed the edit window, I'll reply to myself here to offer a much better argument against the "nothing to hide" position, one that actually addresses its assumptions (this is from Wikipedia): > Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and cryptographer, expressed opposition, citing Cardinal Richelieu's statement "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged", referring to how a state government can find aspects in a person's life in order to prosecute or blackmail that individual.[11] Schneier also argued that the actual choice is between "liberty versus control" instead of "security versus privacy".[11] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument I don't think the "nothing to hide" argument is unassailable. There are good arguments against it. The "naked in a restaurant" or "why do you pull your shades" responses just happen to be very silly ones. Crucially, Schneier's argument directly deflates one of the core assumptions of the "nothing to hide," position, whereas the "naked in a restaurant" response is a pithy but meaningless volley that misunderstands the argument it's replying to and so ultimately addresses a position nobody actually holds. More generally, and at risk of verbosity, it's generally of little use to attack a policy position on the grounds that holding it renders the supporter a hypocrite. "If you support this policy, then logically you have to support this other policy! And since you don't support the other policy, you can't support the original one! Gotcha!" No, one can support Policy A and not Policy B, even in the face of convincing arguments that one must support both in order to remain ideologically consistent. Ordinary people aren't all that interested in ideological perfection, so it's just simply not a fruitful line of attack.

by junon 5y ago

MikeUt 5y ago

I don't like those responses, because they fundamentally don't address the issue. What if the person is okay with a trustworthy government agent/system seeing them naked, or having a copy of their house key? This way they won't be embarrassed in public, or get robbed, while the government still gets what it needs to "keep them safe". I think a better response is - what if they did have something to hide? What if they were a government or corporate whistleblower, a human rights lawyer, or a journalist? What if the government changes and suddenly their friendship with a Tibetan sympathizer becomes a liability? What if they're none of those, but due to their carelessness, make whistleblowers stand out because they're the only ones trying to keep some privacy, making them easy to find an retaliate against?

alpaca128 5y ago
> what if they did have something to hide? Or, what if something harmless becomes illegal overnight and now it's too late to hide existing links to you? The "nothing to hide" argument relies on the assumption that governments and laws remain stable. Which is obviously far from reality. We have an example of a country getting split in half literally within one night, and right now people are still getting executed for having the wrong religion or sexuality - or, like recently in Afghanistan, because they dared to work as translator for US troops.
- matz1 5y ago
  >Or, what if something harmless becomes illegal So this is the actual issue then ? Instead of resorting to hiding, should instead fix the root issue: change the law.
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    Does surveillance make it easier, or harder, to change unjust law, or an unjust government? Or even learn there are injustices being carried out in the first place? Suppose the people of Hong Kong followed your advice, and had allowed surveillance infrastructure to spread through their city, mapping out everyone's social graphs and political affiliations. Now that a hostile government is in charge of their city, there is no reason to worry the govt. has inherited all the gathered information and knows exactly who to target - if they don't like it, they should fix the root issue and change the law.
    - matz1 5y ago
      The difference with hong kong is the surveillance is one sided, goverment can surveil their citizen but the citizen can't surveil the goverment. The surveillance/transparency has to be on both side. Government can't just do whatever they want if they also being surveilled.
      - MikeUt 5y ago
        > Government can't just do whatever they want if they also being surveilled. No? Because it seems to me if you're the one with power, you have a lot less to fear from surveillance, than if you're without. Say there's only one political party allowed (officially or unofficially) - that means it is free to organize and act as a political party, while if you were to try and start your own, you'd be jailed.
        matz1 5y ago
        >Because it seems to me if you're the one with power, So where does their power come from ? Information advantage ? No, if both side has the same information Strength in number? there are more citizen then the government people.

fsflover 5y ago

This is completely missing the point of why one should fight surveillance. Surveillance harms journalism and activism, making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, it will be much easier to target them. Everyone should have privacy to protect them. It’s sort of like freedom of speech is necessary not just for journalists, but for everyone, even if you have nothing to say.

matz1 5y ago
>making the government too powerful and not accountable. If only activists and journalists will try to have the privacy, Then I much rather for everyone to have no privacy so it level the playing field. I don't have to worry about having to hide stuff.
- npteljes 5y ago
  You're onto the right idea I think. But the only way for everyone to have the same level of privacy, is to everyone have their privacy. Because since you can achieve privacy, in a world where it would be mandated to have no privacy, the powerful would still have ways to achieve it, while the less powerful wouldn't - and thereby making the world unjust. No level playing field. It's also not you who should be worrying about hiding stuff. That would be the job of everything you use; making sure that they don't get sued or worse for violating your privacy. In the world where privacy is a properly enforced human right, of course.
  - matz1 5y ago
    As technology getting better and better, it becoming more and more difficult to hide information. Imagine smaller and smaller device that can record more and more information and transmit it faster and faster. Information wants to be free. Its simply more pragmatic approach to embrace and adapt to transparency. > the powerful would still have ways to achieve it, while the less powerful wouldn't The imbalance of power come from information asymmetry. e.g The government has more information then the citizen thus they are more powerful but if we strive for transparency for both side then the playing field is leveled. Sure you can do that by privacy for both side but then you are fighting against the progress of technology.

dionidium 5y ago

The phrase, "I have nothing to hide" means more or less, "I don't have anything to hide from authorities who wish to view my data in an official capacity, so I'm willing to cede some privacy in that specific context to those particular actors, if it helps them achieve goals to which I'm sympathetic." Telling someone who says that to prove it by getting naked in a restaurant is a bizarre non sequitur.

dionidium 5y ago
Since I've missed the edit window, I'll reply to myself here to offer a much better argument against the "nothing to hide" position, one that actually addresses its assumptions (this is from Wikipedia): > Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and cryptographer, expressed opposition, citing Cardinal Richelieu's statement "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged", referring to how a state government can find aspects in a person's life in order to prosecute or blackmail that individual.[11] Schneier also argued that the actual choice is between "liberty versus control" instead of "security versus privacy".[11] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument I don't think the "nothing to hide" argument is unassailable. There are good arguments against it. The "naked in a restaurant" or "why do you pull your shades" responses just happen to be very silly ones. Crucially, Schneier's argument directly deflates one of the core assumptions of the "nothing to hide," position, whereas the "naked in a restaurant" response is a pithy but meaningless volley that misunderstands the argument it's replying to and so ultimately addresses a position nobody actually holds. More generally, and at risk of verbosity, it's generally of little use to attack a policy position on the grounds that holding it renders the supporter a hypocrite. "If you support this policy, then logically you have to support this other policy! And since you don't support the other policy, you can't support the original one! Gotcha!" No, one can support Policy A and not Policy B, even in the face of convincing arguments that one must support both in order to remain ideologically consistent. Ordinary people aren't all that interested in ideological perfection, so it's just simply not a fruitful line of attack.