61 ms·

Privacy vs. “I have nothing to hide” (2019)

• amatecha 4y ago
  The author should update this post to describe about abortion stuff in US. Perfect example of how data privacy (or lack thereof) is a literal direct risk to individuals.
• antonymy 4y ago
  Nobody is ever concerned about privacy until it's too late to be. It's just a question of when you learn this lesson, and how damaging it is. If you're very lucky you only suffer embarrassment.
• FpUser 4y ago
  This whole talk is utterly useless. We as a society in most part have accepted multiple 24x7 electronic spies in our lives. It is only a matter of time until governments will start prosecuting us en masse using the results of always on surveillance.
  • ramtatatam 4y ago
    Problems related to privacy are making wider circles, more people who would normally not care are being made aware and this is changing the society on scale which is hard to imagine. > It is only a matter of time until governments will start prosecuting us en masse using the results of always on surveillance. I know many who chose not to opt in to technical means allowing surveillance, and I come from the country where people were historically going very far to protect their freedom, including ending up in torture room... we have this in our blood. Many will simply stop using or even owning devices mandated by government, even if the price is very high.
• omgomgomgomg 4y ago
  Everyone who says "I have nothing to hide" is a bold faced liar. Porn browsing history,bank credentials, intimacy,that one drug fueled party you wish didnt happened,medical records, own kids images, hell, people do not even speak about their salaries. The only ones worse than these are the people saying "If you do not have anything to hide". No, thanks. If you want to share your things with the world and governments and private companies, go ahead, but leave me alone.
  • parker_mountain 4y ago
    You would be surprised at how many people are completely and utterly boring. How many have so few assets, vanilla history, no embarrassing health issues, and believe all drugs are for wastrels. Do not count on being able to embarrass the enemy :) :(
    • JohnFen 4y ago
      Even the most boring person has information they want to keep secret. Banking activity is the obvious one.
      • parker_mountain 4y ago
        There's a huge difference between secret because it's embarrassing and secret because it's a pain to deal with fraud. Many of them would have no problem turning all of that banking info over to "the authorities" :)
        • tekknik 4y ago
          i can definitely think of a few things that can come from purchase history that could end careers, relationships or families: 1) Having homophobic parents and buying anything supporting a “non-traditional lifestyle” (like books from a particular vendor) 2) Having liberal parents and buying say a firearm 3) An unfaithful spouse supporting another relationship (remember Ashley Madison?) 4) Being a well known promoter of a particular brand when buying from another for personal use
    • TillE 4y ago
      Lot of people look boring in public but really aren't in private. Also, pretty much everyone is guilty of, at the very very least, numerous traffic violations.
      • parker_mountain 4y ago
        > Lot of people look boring in public but really aren't in private. Of course. I am referring to the people who are boring in private, clearly.
• dayvid 4y ago
  Zero-privacy is revolutionary if it applies to everyone. If it's privacy for me and not for you, then it's BAU power dynamics.
• hinkley 4y ago
  The argument I always make is that people who think they don’t care about privacy probably don’t want everyone to know what they bought at the drugstore. Does everyone need to know you have hemorrhoids? And if you’re not a nudist you were on pretty shaky ground to begin with. For me I knew people who had been harassed or stalked. Stalking is much worse when they know where you are all the time, and I don’t buy the argument that knowing where the stalker is (symmetric information) works because the two people have different values.
• stakkur 4y ago
  A: "I have nothing to hide!" B: "Then stop wearing clothes." A: "That's stupid, it's against the law to run around naked in public!" B: "So what if we had privacy laws like that?" A: "That's stupid, I have nothing to hide!"
• teddyh 4y ago
  Bruce Schneier put it quite succinctly in his article The Eternal Value of Privacy (from 2006): Some clever answers: “If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these – as right as they are – is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. — https://www.wired.com/2006/05/the-eternal-value-of-privacy/ https://www.wired.com/2006/05/the-eternal-value-of-privacy/
  • thunkshift1 4y ago
    + 1
  • nonethewiser 4y ago
    I agree 100% with the conclusion but I don't think this one is a good argument (although it sounds clever). > “If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” Because they couldn't know you're not doing anything wrong unless they watch you. Not doing anything wrong does not get rid of their "need" to watch.
    • mrslave 4y ago
      It plays into the principle of probable cause (which may or may not be law in your state) and against the idea of widespread surveillance and data retention.
• renewiltord 4y ago
  Something is wrong about this post. If you have Google Timeline turned on (I do), you get the following: > Rene, here's your new Timeline update You're receiving this monthly email because you turned on Location History, a Google Account-level setting that saves where you go in your private Timeline. Location History data also helps give you personalized information on Google, including better restaurant recommendations, and suggestions for a faster commute. You can view, edit, and delete this data anytime in Timeline. Personally, I have it turned on because I like looking at where I was etc. I have an iPhone and I still have it turned on. There's nothing surreptitious about it. It's quite open and sends you a monthly email if you turned on Location History (though I've forgotten if that's opt-in)
• TedShiller 4y ago
  Laws change. Do you want your data out there knowing that?
• talkingtab 4y ago
  I think there is a simpler way to understand this. If you have nothing to hide, then post all of your crucial information (this is facetious) including your address, your phone number, the names and ages of all members of your family. Then post the history of all your browser usage. Then your place of work, your driver's license, where you shop, all of your Amazon purchases for the last year ... You get the picture. We don't have something to hide when we don't reveal this information. We are just protecting ourselves and our loved ones in a world where there are many bad actors.
• Paul-E 4y ago
  A great paper on this topic is 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
  • dredmorbius 4y ago
    Solove is amongst the most intelligent commentators on this topic I've seen. Strongly recommended.
• anonym29 4y ago
  When you use a stall in a public restroom, do you close the stall door or leave it open? Everyone knows what you are doing. You aren't doing anything immoral or unethical. But you want (and deserve) privacy anyway.
• gcanyon 4y ago
  It seems pretty inevitable we're headed toward a reality where there is no privacy. As one example, people are concerned about face recognition, but researchers have had success identifying people simply by their gait when they walk. As machine learning becomes more powerful, more and more of what we do will be exposed even if we close off the most obvious sources of information. If the above is true, then the choice isn't between privacy and not-privacy; it's between fake-privacy where some people know All The Things but others don't, and openness. It will be painful to get used to (depending on how fast the transition is) but I'd choose openness.
• DubiousPusher 4y ago
  If you have nothing to hide, you just be rather dull. I don't mean that only unlawful behavior is fun but if you've never had a thought or written something you would rather not share I can't imagine how either passive or manipulable you must be.
• yboris 4y ago
  A worthwhile book on Privacy is: Privacy is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data by Carissa Véliz https://www.amazon.com/Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control/dp/1787634043 https://www.amazon.com/Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control/dp/...
• worik 4y ago
  "I have nothing to hide" Until you do, and then it is too late
• MichaelCollins 4y ago
  If you have nothing to hid, then you probably have nothing of substance to say.
• nyxtom 4y ago
  Privacy is inherently also a security problem - the more identifying information a company has on me, the more vulnerable I am to being targeted (well intention or not). In a world where data breaches are pretty frequent, I'd say less is is preferred.
• nixpulvis 4y ago
  I'll just chime in with this bit of my own personal musings on the subject. I perform very differently in public and when I'm being recorded vs when I'm alone and in private. The psychology behind this is not hard to imagine. Just like I code differently when I think I'm publishing my git logs vs just hacking together a prototype. The act of performance imposes itself on the actor just as it does on the audience, if not more! Privacy is therefor almost less about the recorded data as it is about the recording itself. The implication of the data or the memory is enough to change everything.
• lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  I think the discussion around privacy is too often framed in a defensive manner. Instead, I think the conversation should be reframed as a matter of a right to know. In other words, the burden of proof is not on those whose information is being sought, but those who seek that information about others or from others. If you want to know something, you must have a justification for knowing. The presumption is in favor of privacy. Furthermore, consent alone is not enough to justify seeking or sharing some kinds of information. (This should be read in a common sense way. I am not proposing a society of antisocial and hostile loners terrified to have a conversation with anyone.) Take medical information. Who has a right to know that you have cancer? Depression? A spouse, the parent of a young child are entitled to health information as a general principle because of the nature of those relationships. But is Google, some guy at Google, your grocer, some colleague entitled? No. However, a criminal case may require obtaining such information and so the state may have a legitimate, conditional, and very selective claim to that kind of information in certain circumstances. Privacy is necessary for human beings to flourish, at least in this life. As a practical matter, knowing something about someone can impede the good of both the person about whom something is known as well as the knower. It can negatively affect human relationships. Knowing the boundaries does require sound prudential judgement, of course, which is why if you're unsure, it can help to ask yourself what the justification for inquiring or disclosing is in a given situation. (Gossips are people who lack this sort of prudence and suffer from intemperate curiosity.)
  • amatecha 4y ago
    I totally agree. I [knowingly] divulge personal information only when I choose to, and protest pretty vocally when information I don't feel like divulging is requested or "required". You can imagine the scathing feedback I gave to the _legally-mandated_ federal census I got subjected to last year. It asked stuff like my religious beliefs, gender identity, stuff that honestly the government has zero business even asking me, let alone knowing.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
  "Tech" companies have soemthing to hide. For example, consider the recent 11th hour settlement by Facebook, for the second time. Meta will pay anything to keep Zuckerberg from having to answer questions under oath in federal court. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/27/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-lawsuit-ends-in-11th-hour-settlement http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/27/facebook-c...
• mgraczyk 4y ago
  IMO this is just a bad counterargument. I do in fact have nothing to hide and it's not worth it for me to worry about very unlikely potential changes in geopolitics 10+ years from now. I know how companies like Facebook and Google use data, I know how the US government uses data. I'm fine with it, I have nothing to hide FROM THEM. The probability of something bad happening to me is low and the expected value I get from sharing data is high. It's a perfectly reasonable preference and I'm pretty well informed about the history of oppressive governments and the current state of data usage. Personally I would never pretend to lick somebody's food. However I've don't equally bad shit and left a paper trail online, but I trust both Google and the government with that data. It's possible in 10+ years it could be used against me, but so unlikely that it doesn't offset the benefits I receive from freely sharing data.
• SergeAx 4y ago
  Dismissing privacy on a basis of "I have nothing to hide" is an equivalent of dismissing freedom of speech on a basis of "I have nothing to say".
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• gigel82 4y ago
  Everyone talks about consent for data collection which of course is a must, but that's just the first step. There's a second layer to this; when a platform becomes so big that not using it is a hardship that platform must offer services without data collection at all (and this should be mandated by law). For example, a lot of government-provided services require the use of a smart phone to access; yet you cannot use a smart phone without agreeing to data collection (either by Apple, or Google) - I'm ignoring the 0.0001% Linux phones (and ungoogled androids). Or how Windows is required in many schools and universities to turn in assignments, yet there is absolutely no way to disable data collection by Microsoft. The bar should be much higher once the platform reaches a certain level; they should no longer be allowed to say "if you don't want to give us your data, don't use us". No, you need to prove why the data collection is absolutely required to provide the services you're providing.
• grog454 4y ago
  A bet a majority of people making the "I have nothing to hide" argument actually do and just don't really think about it. How would you feel about a system that monitored your driving in such a way that every second you spend 1 mph over the speed limit, you accrue a fine and points on your license? I'm pretty sure the driving in my home state would change drastically, very quickly, so maybe it'd be a good thing over all.
• Nifty3929 4y ago
  I suspect that most people are not worried about government intrusion on privacy, exactly because they feel they don't have anything to hide and haven't (they believe) done anything wrong. They want to feel safe and believe government surveillance will help, and that people going out of their way to use encryption or privacy tools are up to shady business. I'm not sure how to change this mindset. I just do not see how to get the vast majority of people to value privacy, especially at the cost of (perceived) safety. Edit: And, ironically, those same people WILL be very concerned about privacy from (dastardly!) corporations, while I am not so much.
  • macrolocal 4y ago
    If A can surveil B but B can't surveil A, then A will generally out-maneuver B whenever their interests diverge.
• nottorp 4y ago
  You have nothing to hide ... vs who? Look at the recent Minecraft chat bans discussion. On one side those who want a "kid safe" environment. On the other side those who are having fun in small communities on private servers. Turns out what they do there can now earn them a global ban. Also usually those who have "nothing to hide" tend to be the kind that would impose their values on the society as a whole. At gunpoint if possible.
• tim333 4y ago
  >The answer is simple – stop using these services and look for privacy respecting alternatives where possible. I can't say I agree with that personally - I still use google facebook et al. The answer for me I think is only to put stuff you are not bothered about being private on such services and if you say want to ship 1 ton of cocaine to N Korea in return for a nuke you don't do it on such services. Life's too short to be paranoid that google knows I'm having a coffee in Pret.
• daniel-cussen 4y ago
  The "nothing to hide" line is diametrical to an American education, which typically provides access to the Bill of Rights. And it was talked about that communism was invasive of privacy and private property, which absolutely cannot exist in any way without privacy. Like if you own a farm, you have the deed. Where in the house is it? How do you enter the house? With a key. What does the key look like? Can't reveal that because then it can be forged and the door opened. OK what if you're locked out? Well then there's another way in nobody knows about it's underneath the flowerpot in the dirt--THAT'S PRIVACY. Private property is founded on privacy. The alternative is being the only man strong enough to lift a boulder blocking the entrance. And even then that's because that man has privacy within his nervous system, his muscles are not connecting to other people's nervous systems with wires. Privacy -> private property. Otherwise you have nothing. Nothing to hide. Really it was the bitchvictim media saying people said this. It cannot be taken seriously, people don't say this, it's a bitchvictim media trope. They imposed it as a social expectation. Then people think people think that. Dude nothing to hide why wear clothing? They don't show their genitals upon request. Only saints have nothing to hide. Even then, they typically stand up to torture before betraying information leading to eg the Christian Catacombs. Nothing to hide, yeah.
• timvisee 4y ago
  How is this any different with everything that is stored in iCloud?
• azangru 4y ago
  So he moves from Android phones that are bad on privacy to Apple iPhone, which is bad on web browser engines. I wish there was a better choice; but I think I would still pick Android for now...
  • Defletter 4y ago
    Currently replying on my newly deGoogled Android phone (/e/OS). It's a bit awkward in a few ways but it definitely feels like I'm not handing over all my data to Google.
  • desindol 4y ago
    The most annoying part is the hybris if they would really care they would go for the real alternatives like a pine or phones with plasma or sailfish. Nope most of these articles take the comfort option over what they preach.
  • dmm 4y ago
    A degoogled pixel phone with CalyxOS or GrapheneOS is a good alternative. You can choose not to use cloud services and better control what runs on your phone.
  • hooby 4y ago
    There actually ARE other choices - like Librem, PinePhone, etc. These other choices definitely are better when it comes to privacy. But probably worse in every other regard. I personally am not quite willing to make that tradeoff (yet). But I sure am highly grateful to everyone who does, and helps make those alternatives better, and helps them gain momentum.
    • mojzu 4y ago
      I agree, given how much I rely on my phone/computer to just work, I'd not personally be willing to make the usability and reliability tradeoffs with switching to something like a PinePhone. Plus there are some other steps you can take to reduce the privacy/security risks of relying on Google/Apple/etc., for example I use PiHole/Tailscale for DNS and Cryptomator for files stored in the cloud
• sendfoods 4y ago
  Have you thought about GrapheneOS? Pixel hardware, No Google, but android app compatibility?
  • thomzane 4y ago
    They lost me with their article "Why I’m Ditching Android" which is a switch from Google to Apple. Just like switching from Coke to Pepsi is not going to help you lose weight. You have to make a real change to be private. https://kevquirk.com/why-im-ditching-android https://kevquirk.com/why-im-ditching-android
  • Bakary 4y ago
    How practical is it in daily life? Does it allow you to just install apps and not have to tinker too much like a "regular" phone?
    • sendfoods 4y ago
      It does, either via AuroraStore (complete Google Play Store replacement without google account) or Sandboxed Google Play [1]. My banking apps works, and everything else I can think of. Hard to say what a "normal" level of tinkering is with Android, as I have switched directly from iOS to Graphene and have never used Stock Android. I am sure some things are a little bit more cumbersome, but for me the tradeoff is worth it. Also the stock g-cam (with internet access disabled) and g-photos (with internet access disabled) make a pretty amazing photo and photo editing experience. [1] https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
• tomrod 4y ago
  Yes to every single one of these notes.
• prometheus76 4y ago
  You may have nothing to hide in the current political climate or under the current political leaders, but what is allowed now might become anathema later, and those records can be searched and retroactively prosecuted. We already see hints of this when someone gets canceled for something they tweeted 10 years ago. Imagine that, but on a broader scale with more violent consequences. That's why privacy is important for everyone.
  • Defletter 4y ago
    True but your arguments here largely regard deliberate speech, whereas the post is more about personal data. What OS is running on your phone doesn't really make a difference in whether you get cancelled over something your posted on social media 10 years ago.
    • prometheus76 4y ago
      But were you in a certain building at the time the opposition party was having a meeting? Did you have dinner with this certain person who was part of an underground resistance (of which you had no idea at the time)? Your phone was turned off for 10 hours, during which this murder happened and someone saw you in the area. I could go on like this. I think you underestimate the story someone can build from your data (even if the story they invent is completely untrue) and I think you underestimate the frenzied desperation that can overtake people in power who are desperate to stay in power. Reading historic accounts of life in totalitarian regimes is worth the effort.
      • P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        to add to that, were you in the area of the capitol riots while it was happening? Hope you can prove your innocence! The point to be made is that you don't know because you can't predict.
    • emiliobumachar 4y ago
      Give the iOS fans vs. Android fans rivalry 15 more years.
• tomquirk 4y ago
  hey kev quirk i'm tom quirk. great article!
  • hooby 4y ago
    quirky
• simonw 4y ago
  The thing about privacy is you never know when future politics is going to come into play. Maybe a medical procedure will suddenly become illegal, such that your location history is now subject to warranted search. Maybe your country will take a sharp turn towards authoritarianism, electing politicians who are ready and willing to use law enforcement to "punish" their enemies. Maybe your monarch will die, and a recently passed bill will be used to arrest people who protest the existence of the monarchy. Having "nothing to hide" isn't necessarily a fixed state.
  • bgro 4y ago
    Yeah. Medical procedures, like abortions in the states, are a very real example of how things can dramatically change on a whim to an unbelievable level. Or syncing your cycle data to a smart device and later having a retro-scan to detect cycle anomalies to charge women with probable crimes. We do that with speed cameras, why not just automate health data mining too? Why did you stop updating your cycle data, is it because you knew you were pregnant and wanted an abortion? Sounds like suspicious activity to me, exactly identical to turning around at a DUI checkpoint.
    • shabbatt 4y ago
      What I find most ironic is that those people who are now realizing the same privacy platforms they used to defend with "I have nothing to hide" are the ones complying against their interests. It's a poignant example of what others have pointed out. "I have nothing to hide" until political landscape changes to make it something to hide. It's like people pushing for liberal drug laws and legalizing homeless tents and then one day its in their backyard. While I feel for women part of groups that are impacted by Roe vs Wade being overturned, their apathy against privacy concerns have boomeranged, the same of which proportion of men who aren't having to deal with abortion are looking at this issue as "I don't need an abortion so it doesn't concern me". Those women caught up in this struggle also looked on, along with men and everybody else as Uyghur women were sterilized and forced to abort using the very surveillance mechanism that were developed and custom tailored to fit the needs of the abusers. It's almost like the land of CCP is a testing ground for what's in store for Western civilization. Remember what caused Latin America's shift towards tyranny and dictatorship, it was inflation. Nothing about our land that makes it any less susceptible or resilient. Inflation has deep remifications to privacy and this Roe vs Wade situation is only the beginning.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• mrweasel 4y ago
  If people say they have nothing to hide, ask them if they close/lock the door when they use the bathroom. It's not like their doing anything secret in the bathroom, I mean there's only a few number of things people realistically do in there and we all know what they are. This is the best way I've been able to illustrate the difference between privacy and secrecy. Some things I do are just private, doesn't mean that they are secret.
  • asdff 4y ago
    The things people do in there are sometimes smelly or splashy so a closed door is preferred even when you are all alone at home
  • Kiro 4y ago
    That argument has never convinced anyone, ever. It's almost as bad as "then give me your credit card number".
    • BitwiseFool 4y ago
      How about "Do you keep any secrets?"
    • mrweasel 4y ago
      Is there really anything you can do or say that will change peoples mind? If people don't see the problem, then explaining it is one thing, and I think the bathroom thing works okay. It won't cause them to change their mind, but you can convince them of the problem. Even if their privacy is blatantly misused a large number of people wouldn't change their mind.
  • WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
    This is actually an interesting question. If I lived alone, I would rather unlock my door on purpose when taking a shower, so that in case I fell and knocked myself out, my neighbors and the ambulance personnel had an easier time getting in.
    • 4y ago
• that_guy_iain 4y ago
  What do I have to hide? Legally, nothing. In my day-to-day life, I don't do anything that is a crime. I'm not using lots of drugs, I'm not into illegal porn, I'm not committing fraud, robbing banks, or planning anything illegal. But I still don't want everyone to know what porn I view, what I did as a child, what I plan on doing next year, or when I am or I am not at home. While I may having nothing I need to hide, I have lots of things I want to hide. It's just happens that all the stuff I don't care about hiding are all the things these privacy consuming companies want. For others, they want to hide more and that's ok too.
  • spaetzleesser 4y ago
    " I don't do anything that is a crime" You may be doing something right now that may be viewed as a crime in the future. Abortion comes to mind but I am sure there are more.
    • that_guy_iain 4y ago
      I think you miss the point, I said I have nothing to hide yet still want to hide things. Also, there is only one time I can think of where someone has been convicted of a crime while it was legal when they did it and it was The Pirate Bay conviction. Everything else, it's always been if it's legal while you do it, it's legal. That holds true for abortion.
  • pclmulqdq 4y ago
    You have no idea whether you are currently committing any crimes. The US code is something like 80,000 pages and includes several felonies like carrying a sharpie or a screwdriver around in public or using a fake name on the internet. In the EU, the situation is similar. Nobody has any idea what they have to hide legally.
    • that_guy_iain 4y ago
      No, I'm really certain I'm not committing crimes. Living a rather boring life, where I work almost non-stop and use the internet. Many of the laws you are referring to are basically dead laws. You couldn't convict someone if you tried.
• JAA1337 4y ago
  I fundamentally disagree with the premise. I believe a hacker, or bad actor in general, will gain access to my data if they really really wanted it. I believe stealing data is just a function of time and resources (money). Based on this premise, I don't keep anything truly valuable available digitally. Sure, I have my bank accounts secured, but nothing past start practices. I do not believe my feelings on this mean I do not care about free speech, nor do I not care about privacy. I believe our reality is that no one should be surprised if their data is stolen. People should plan on this happening and be prepared. Just as corporations have Incident Response and Business Continuity plans.
  • simonw 4y ago
    I'm honestly having trouble imagining anything valuable in my life that isn't digital at the point. My pets I guess? Do you have physical notebooks full of information that you don't like to keep in digital format?
    • deepstack 4y ago
      Yup. For serious people like military, etc they do keep important info in NON-digital form. When Snowden revelations came out, Russians switched to type writer for their internal memos. For personal use, just have to say offline USB drive is a good investment if you can make the physical switch. Until we can have something like the quantum entanglement communication.
      • JAA1337 4y ago
        Im not a conspiracy theorist or eternal cynic, but yes to the above stuff. I simply dont trust anyone. In the software world its the same concept as never trusting anything client side.
        • deepstack 4y ago
          I don't think it has anything to to conspiracy theory or anything like that, it just a matter of fact, that nation state actors just simply DO NOT trust anything digital for important stuff ATM.
• pydry 4y ago
  The only time I've ever gotten someone "with nothing to hide" interested in data privacy was when I made an idle comment about ads I saw after sharing their IP address that were clearly targeted at them. That idle comment was accidentally 10x more convincing than any amount of rigorous argument. IME people who have "nothing to hide" get suddenly more interested in data privacy if it stops being an abstract threat. They see Google knowing their intimate secrets in much the same way they would their hairdryer. Until they dont. Unfortunately, that will probably happen for most people about two weeks before a stasi-like secret police takes full control over the country and by that point it'll have been about 10 years too late to start taking data privacy seriously.
  • Defletter 4y ago
    "[People] get suddenly more interested in data privacy if it stops being an abstract threat." That's true for almost everything, unfortunately.
• sh4un 4y ago
• theandrewbailey 4y ago
  There's the recent story about a man texting pictures of his son's infected <groin area> to his wife and doctor, then Google deletes his account and won't give it back. Oh, and the local law enforcement had a case on him about it. Tell me what evil this man did to deserve what happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveillance-toddler-photo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveil... He had nothing illegal to hide, but got screwed anyway. Privacy would have been useful in this situation, wouldn't it?
  • spaetzleesser 4y ago
    Privacy would help here but more importantly these big companies need to provide a way to fix errors. Seems once you get caught by one of the filters you get suspended and are offered no path to clarify the situation.
    • theandrewbailey 4y ago
      Not really. You can't 'fix' an error that you've reported to the cops. That's kind of on a criminal record at that point. This man could have been suspended by the government, and he would have had to clarify the situation to a judge. Granted, the judge would be infinitely more receptive to arguments than Google, but it shouldn't have to come to that.
      • spaetzleesser 4y ago
        " You can't 'fix' an error that you've reported to the cops. That's kind of on a criminal record at that point. " If the legal system works you can "fix" an error with the cops. It's not like Google reporting something will automatically go on your criminal record. Once the legal system also starts using AI and automated systems to convict people without further explanation then we are in serious trouble.
        • tekknik 4y ago
          How would you resolve the issues with the police? The police are not and should not be judges. The man had “child pornography” on his phone, it was reported and the police did their job given the evidence they had. Watch the TV show COPS to see how many times criminals lie to police officers during an arrest. It’s unfortunate this man got caught up in this but the police did exactly their job. Commit a crime, have evidence, press charges. Arrest if is procedure.
• deadcore 4y ago
  The thing which always irks me about the "I have nothing to hide" comment is would you behave the same if you were being observed. The conversations we all have in the pub, in the car and even in the privacy of our home - would they be the same knowing there is a camera or audio device listening. May just be my tin foil hat speaking, but I believe a lot of things would change knowing you're always being listened to even when you think it's just two people in the room
  • treis 4y ago
    That's a sword that cuts both ways though. Probably a lot less likely to diddle a kid or beat your wife if it's on camera.
    • aidenn0 4y ago
      Probably a lot less likely to have sex with your wife if it's on camera...
    • int_19h 4y ago
      Sure, yet most people wouldn't agree to install that camera in their bedroom even so.
  • krono 4y ago
    My standard response to "I have nothing to hide" is "then why are you wearing clothes?". It seems to work relatively well to put things into the exact perspective you describe.
    • pg_bot 4y ago
      My response is to "I have nothing to hide", is that isn't what you're giving up when you give away your privacy. You should be comfortable with "never needing to hide anything in your past, present, or future". The future is impossible to predict and actions that could be innocuous today may cause a great deal of trouble for you in the future. You give up that right forever when you lose privacy.
    • 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• WATTRE 4y ago
  Hapos
• roody15 4y ago
  Sadly in the US there is not really a privacy debate. Essentially the “I have nothing to hide” line of reasoning has been pressed ahead and the nation continues in the direction of China. We have a bit of a pretend debate from now and then … and a few technical elite are able to protect their own privacy to some degree… but for the masses privacy debate was over before it began. If anything it is just a marketing campaign by a few companies like Apple. (Side Note: Apple fully complies with all warrants and decrypts all icloud data and hands it over)
  • 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
    > Apple fully complies with all warrants and decrypts all icloud data and hands it over nooo, the same Apple that had "never heard of the NSA". it can't be...
  • danaris 4y ago
    > Apple fully complies with all warrants and decrypts all icloud data and hands it over You say this like it's some kind of gotcha, rather than Apple, a major corporation, refusing to actively break the law of the country where they're headquartered.
    • jazzyjackson 4y ago
      > refusing to actively break the law of the country where they're headquartered. it is not illegal to allow users to hold their own keys such that Apple would have nothing to hand over to the government Apple chooses to run icloud in such a way that they can provide data on request.
      • danaris 4y ago
        Apple chooses to run iCloud in basically the same way every mainstream cloud company does, plus some additional privacy features. Expecting them to operate a service like iCloud like a tech-expert-focused privacy-first-even-before-usability service is just utterly unrealistic.
    • 4y ago
• motohagiography 4y ago
  There is a view of "rights and freedoms" that is related to privacy, where rights are positively defined, and freedom is a limit on the scope and ability or powers of the state or other party to encroach on it, a kind of "shall make no law" clause. It makes more sense in the context of a freedom, where a platform provider would simply not be entitled to collect, use, disclose, or retain information without the express consent of the data subject. This is how health information privacy works, and privacy legislation around some governments and agencies using PII. Freedom is something for people, not the transnational conspiracies we call "platforms" these days. As arms of policy, the FAANGs are in effect, modern Hudsons Bay and the British and Dutch East India Companies. Somehow we've made corporations sovereign on the internet, and the only mitigations we have on it are from free software and encryption tech - which they routinely evade and sabotage on behalf of their advertisers, but also for government agencies whose activities are otherwise regulated by constitutional and other guaranteed freedoms. This axis of state and industry colluding against citizen "users," has a bunch of ugly precedents. Imo, addressing the "I have nothing to hide," argument at all is a tarpit. These are neutralized and disengaged people who are content to bargain and live as liquid subjects, and expecting anything more than repeating official talking points and bromides from them misunderstands their survival strategy. I don't think you change anyones mind, you can only activate or neutralize them based on their existing beliefs. I'd recommend letting the "I have nothing to hide" people alone, and instead, encourage active minds to develop the skills to build technology and products that shape the future.
  • salawat 4y ago
    Even PHI is monetized, btw. You know those HIPAA forms you sign? They tend to authorize sharing of your info with insurers and their partners, and often the sponsors of the plan if it is through an employer indirectly through metrics and reporting. If enough attention is paid, and data correlated carefully enough, one can deanonymize on that alone if one cared to.
    • motohagiography 4y ago
      Indeed, recording consent in healthcare has become a joke and the incentives for regulators to enforce it aren't there either. I worked on a platform for consent directives management, and the problem wasn't technical, it was "deprioritized" by the agency responsible for it because it put limits on their discretion. I'd even say health information is worse than monetized now, it's actively politicized. I know that C19 vaccination records (names/addr/date/dosenumber) were shared with PR/oppo-research firms working for politicans involved in the rollout, and there was no consent for collection or use of that data either. We live in interesting times.:)
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• vouaobrasil 4y ago
  Privacy is a fundamental right. I don't want people even knowing what setting I use for the dishwasher, because it's my right to have it private.
  • MrMan 4y ago
    I don't think privacy, in the sense of a right not to be observed, is a right at all. its like saying you have the right for people not to look at you or remember you, it may sound like a great idea but its fundamentally unworkable.
    • Bakary 4y ago
      I think what people mean by privacy is what might be considered private within reasonable expectations. Not being seen in public like you have Potter's cloak is not realistic. But there's no clear reason why an American tech company should have so much access to everything you do.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• mrjin 4y ago
  I have nothing to hide indeed, but I have nothing that I want to let THEY know neither!!
• 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  Even for those with "Nothing to hide (tm)", the only rational approach is privacy maximization. Suppose your future circumstances change and you find yourself in a situation where you do have something to hide. The mere fact that you have "gone dark" can be observed and used as evidence that you are now engaging in activities you believe need to be hidden. Anyone with kids will recognise this - you're not worried when they're yelling and screaming. You're worried when they stop yelling and screaming and suddenly become too quiet.
• butterNaN 4y ago
  I feel Apple has succeeded in marketing themselves as somehow more private. They are worse than even android, IMHO. They fight for your data like a lion fights for a deer. Anyone thinking apple has no advertising prospects is deluding themselves. Advertising is a curse on humanity.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Sometimes having a strong competitor has an advantage. It becomes a team game on who is worse and the question if both are terrible doesn't get the focus it might need.
  • 62728494929 4y ago
    Worse than Android for privacy? A simple GDPR data request shows Android is FAR worse. If you disable tracking on Google, the user experience is severely limited, while it's not on iOS, as the services is build around less data collection. Besides that, iOS E2E encrypt a lot more like health data, browsing history, maps data, HomeKit data etc.
• EliRivers 4y ago
  I have a lot to hide. I want to hide what sandwich I had for lunch. I want to hide what book I'm reading at the moment. I want to hide what my favourite mug is. I want to hide lots of things about my life that are legal and socially completely acceptable. Why do I want to hide these legal and socially acceptable activities? That's also something I choose not to divulge. Should I be allowed to hide these things?
• M2Ys4U 4y ago
  Privacy is all about having agency over information about one's life. Unless there is some clear and genuine overriding interest, I should be the one to decide whether or not, to whom, when, and how that information is disclosed. That doesn't mean I am necessarily opposed to any piece of information being disclosed (i.e. I have nothing to hide), but these decisions shouldn't be made for me.
• the_snooze 4y ago
  Let's say I don't have anything to hide. Even so, my devices contain lots of sensitive information about my friends, family, colleagues, and employer. I wouldn't want to put them in a bind. Privacy is actually a group-level challenge. Trying to reduce it to individual action (i.e., "I don't mind if they look through my stuff") is nonsensical because it's not just your data.
• zhichu 4y ago
  I am in an authoritarian country. Our speech is censored, and online chat is monitored. We have to consider whether it is appropriate when typing words and speaking to friends. I care about privacy, but not that much. The author gave me the feeling that I would not drink water for fear of choking to death. Providing private information to some big companies has brought a lot of convenience to our lives at the same time. When making a choice, I will weigh the gains and losses. As far as I am concerned, I loss more while over-considering the privacy.
  • raxxorraxor 4y ago
    I am pretty sure that almost all conveniences are possible without any surveillance. The benefit would be even more security without any downsides.
    • zhichu 4y ago
      For a example, if the mobile keyboard can collect the words you type to enhance their dictionaries. Then you will get a better typing experience.
      • raxxorraxor 4y ago
        I don't see how this has to include any personal information. Perhaps a specific set of otherwise rarely used terms might be able to identify you, but there is otherwise no need to attach any PII to these data sets. The trivial case to implement such a growing dictionary would not collect any private information.
• myth2018 4y ago
  Another very concerning aspect: It's been a long time since it's widely known Google, Facebook and other bigtechs are collecting users' data and profiting from it. That "inspires" a huge number of other companies to try doing the same. The dark sides of the practice are intentionally overlooked and, in places like entrepreneurship-related media, linkedin etc, one constantly reads praises to their ability to (allegedly) improve their services and offers based on predictions out of users data. That worldview results in some "interesting phenomena" in my country. You go to a restaurant and they ask you your document ID, it's a "convenience" they offer you so that you don't need to worry if you loose your consumption card -- and now they know what, when and where you eat. Insurance companies now offer their insurance policies and emergency info in a convenient app, so that you don't need to worry about carrying the docs in your car, and you help saving the planet by not wasting paper -- and now they know where you drive over, the speed and accelerations you usually employ etc. Drugstores offer you discounts in exchange for your ID -- and now they know or can estimate extremely private info about you, like diseases you may be about to develop, the size of your weenie and god knows what. And I'm pretty sure this data is going to health insurance companies.
• barrysteve 4y ago
  Recording everything doesn't actually erode privacy. What happens in your mind, body and soul is still yours forever. Your relationship to truth and <$DEITY> is only known to you and <$DEITY>, at the end of the day. It's increasingly difficult to communicate what you actually mean to people. People are emptying out their contextual and relational knowledge. They are leaving it in facebook profiles and politics. There's no need to understand someone's life context and how it might influence the meaning of their communications. The more we seek to know in data, the more we see someone's data as their primary context in the world. We see less of what they mean as a person, or what they mean to tell us. You could record every pore of my skin, every hair on my head, my bank account and my programming code. I'll go out and buy a camel, invest in the next crypto fad and move to africa, and you'll have no idea why. Frankly some people are more private than ever, in plain sight, thanks to the Sauron eye (or eyes) of data harvesting. If you 'brought back' privacy, our everyday view of people would require empathy and relating to the person, so that you understand what's different about them. People would make their direction more clear, simply to facilitate communicating something worthwhile.
  • Bakary 4y ago
    One of the humiliating aspects of the connected, data-driven world is that reveals how much of our behavior is predictable, even without access to our inner mental world.
    • barrysteve 4y ago
      Norm McDonald had a great joke about writing his own biography. He asked himself, well what would it be about? His average day, he gets up, he is hungry, so he makes some eggs, has breakfast. By the time he's done with breakfast he goes to do something and it's nearly lunch! So he goes looking for some food for lunch and eats it... annd long story short he concludes that life is mostly about thinking of food, searching for food and eating food. The uninteresting stuff is predictable. I can tell you where a monk lives, what he does every day. But not what it means to live like he does, nor do I know what he'll write next. Humble yes, humiliating? No?
• dzink 4y ago
  My rule of thumb for privacy as a founder and a voter: If you’ve created an online product, or are a interacting with people in any kind of life-critical capacity (doctor, lawyer, landlord, electrician, financial professional, life partner, politician, you name it, etc), you WILL have a very broad swath of clients and some may anger with you due to no fault of your own and try to hurt you in different ways (from murder attempts to scammers). After seeing several friends in different capacity getting attacked for completely unrelated cases, my rule of thumb for privacy is - if a stranger wants to physically hurt you or loved ones, how easy would it be for them to find you and get to you or them. If you are behaving illegally, the law can reach more information and they should, but it should not be so easy for a deranged foe. Privacy is life-saving in that case and it needs to be respected as such.
• cortic 4y ago
  Posted this two years and five months ago, but its still relevant: My nothing to hide argument; Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? surely you want to hide your children from abusers and predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves.. Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or your blood type from rich mobsters with kidney problems.. we don't know who are any of these things. So we should protect ourselves from all of them, in effect we have everything to hide from someone, and no idea who someone is. edit; let me just add the obvious, that the government and police, Google and Facebook, are made up of many someones.
  • BurungHantu 4y ago
    Thanks for posting this, cortic. I hope you don't mind that I've published your argument here: https://www.privacytools.io/ https://www.privacytools.io/
    • cortic 4y ago
      I don't mind, help yourself.
  • dionidium 4y ago
    I would turn this argument around on itself and say, yes, of course I have things to hide, but none of those things need to hidden from 1) authorities conducting legitimate searches; 2) mass surveillance programs that are looking for terrorists; 3) advertising trackers; 4) and so on. You're absolutely right that who and what matter here, but I find the typical who and the typical what to be entirely unobjectionable. It's telling that the best arguments the privacy activists have are all slippery slope arguments. Of course it's easy to think of hypothetical policies to which I'd object; the point is that I don't object to any of the actually-existing programs as currently constructed. If Gmail wants to scan my mail, I don't care. If the NSA wants to drop in on my phone calls every once in a while to see if I'm affiliated with ISIS, that's fine with me. If Facebook wants to keep a log of my activity on the site to better target ads, then they should go for it. The only way to get me to agree that a policy is odious is for you to make up some hypothetical policy that doesn't exist and say, "but what if that happened?!!" And I just don't find that very compelling. In summary, you're absolutely right that, "nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence." The complete sentence is this: I have nothing to hide from any of the people currently looking in any of the places they're looking.
• EncomLab 4y ago
  “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” - Cardinal Richelieu Nothing has really changed since.
  • robswc 4y ago
    Forget who said it but it was something like “show me the man and I’ll find the crime.” I never _really_ understood that quote until after high school.
• RunSet 4y ago
  "If you have nothing to hide you have no need for privacy." "If I have nothing to hide you have no need to violate my privacy."
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• shadowgovt 4y ago
  The major challenge to developing a robust philosophical model of privacy protection isn't the possible worst-case scenario. It's how to weigh the trade-offs of the worst case scenario versus the benefits of the average case scenario. Because when one is in the loop, i.e. when data aggregation is working in one's favor, the benefits are strong and direct. Modern high quality spam filtering is based on big data analysis of what spam looks like. Modern voice recognition is based off of millions of samples of queries in real world scenarios. Much of the power of the modern internet comes from the ability to aggregate data from distributed sources, centralize it, analyze it, and act on analysis, and those capacities aren't limited to the corporations doing the aggregation. So the question becomes not whether one values privacy or not. It becomes how one values privacy relative to the other things one values... Cheap hotel rooms, information on neighborhoods, public and private accountability, the time it will take to cure cancer. All of these benefit from data aggregation and centralization. One should consider worst case scenarios, but stopping at that consideration is like deciding not to invent the airplane because somebody could crash it into a building some day.
  • scarface74 4y ago
    Yes and Apple has publicly available papers about how they use big data and still ensure users privacy.
    • shadowgovt 4y ago
      In the short run, shifting from Google to Apple is probably the best of both worlds: Apple can provide those Big Data benefits without the data landing in Google's warehouse. (In the long run, of course, if the set of Apple users approaches "everyone" the risk model shifts considerably and simply becomes, not unlike Google, "How much do you trust Apple isn't just lying to you?" Google also publishes various documents on how they protect user privacy, for example https://www.google.com/chrome/privacy/whitepaper.html https://www.google.com/chrome/privacy/whitepaper.html... The issue they encounter is people just don't believe them).
      • scarface74 4y ago
• lizardactivist 4y ago
  I wonder how long before large, over-reaching and paranoid governments begins declaring the notion of privacy as an anomaly, or mental disorder.
• BrainVirus 4y ago
  It's a matter of making people use a dumb mental model that benefits someone else. Even better if the dumb mental model goes viral. "I have nothing to hide" mental model is dumb on many levels. The most obvious one has already been mentioned here. Leaked information is stored indefinitely, while standard of behavior in our society currently change at an insane pace (by design). Another big misconception is that you as an individual can realistically evaluate how someone else will perceive your private information. You don't control the context in which your information will be consumed. (Not to mention that the context can be manipulated.) You conversation with a friend will sound very different to a paranoid federal agent whose only job is to find terrorists. With the advent of global communications you can't even predict who will be using your information and for which purpose. (E.g. tons of people know your home address and it's not a problem, yet doxxing is still a thing. The fact that 99% of the people are benign doesn't mean anything if the information is accessible to 100% of the people.) Etc, etc. It's the same bad reasoning at all levels, neatly packaged in a short virtue-signaling phrase. It so neat, it seems engineered. The same goes for "You can’t be truly private online!" It's another dumb mental model. "Truly private" is a fake standard used solely because it's unattainable. In reality, the more information you uncontrollably leak, the worse off you are.
• falcolas 4y ago
  Spicy take: "I have nothing to hide" is another way of saying "I've got mine, fuck you." It's used by people who are comfortable with the current status quo. They're also probably your stereotypical cis/het white males. Since the status quo favors them, why would they care who looks upon their "society approved" lives? It'd probably even flatter them.
  • rosmax_1337 4y ago
    Straight white men are arguably no longer the group which is most favored by the status quo. The remainder of your post is sound though, the "I have nothing to hide" translates well into saying "I am in a position of power, fuck you".
    • falcolas 4y ago
      My argument on this point is detailed in a response to a sibling comment, but the TL;DR: is that they are favored by the Supreme Court, which is actively judging on the protections afforded by the privacy clauses by the constitution to people who are non-heterosexual, non-white, and not-men.
  • bee_rider 4y ago
    This comment was way too low, IMO. Lots of other comments re-state the "ok do you really have nothing to hide" point, which is a funny rhetorical point, but this one seems much stronger. I may be boring. In fact I am pretty boring, looking at my characteristics, I pretty much rolled straight successes on the "nobody wants to oppress me" table. But those of us who are generally safe ought to consider it an obligation to protect our data, so that the more vulnerable populations don't stick out when they try to protect themselves. The "needle in a haystack" needs the haystack.
  • seanw444 4y ago
    The sexuality and race is kind of irrelevant to the point, but I agree with the rest. It is really just a "I'm too comfortable and lazy to do anything to better the rest of civilization." It's the same thing with guns. If you're a fudd and you have your grandpa's old hunting rifle, but you think AR-15s are "stupid and pointless and only the uncorruptable government should be trusted with them!" and you refuse to stand up for their rights when tyrannical law strikes, then they won't be there to back you up when they inevitably come for your hunting rifle. Same for privacy and encryption, and getting off of big tech services and platforms. If enough of us get off now, we can be a force for change. But most people are content with sharing everyone they hang out with, what food they eat for every meal, and all of their life details publicly every day.
• pg314 4y ago
  Even if you have nothing to hide, others do. You don’t want somebody to be able to blackmail a politician or a judge who e.g. had an affair.
• DharmaPolice 4y ago
  While I do know that people do literally say "I have nothing to hide" this still feels like a strawman as I'm not sure how many people are seriously putting that forward in debates. Most people have something to hide. I find privacy advocates tend to put things in a needlessly binary state when really this is a matter of risk assessment. I have plenty to hide, and I've confessed to various crimes in emails that I've saved on Google's servers. So yes, at some point in the future the government could piece that information together and come arrest me. That could happen. But how likely is it? Similarly, with location history - yes, Google could be compromised and they could sell this information. Yes, it does mean that people (in this scenario) could piece together my schedule and work out the best time to burgle my home but any routine I have is (or was) me going into the office at about 8 and coming home at about 6. What my job is available via LinkedIn and is a matter of public record anyway. My name and address is on the electoral roll. Since I have almost nothing worth stealing, this sophisticated criminal operation would be going to a fair amount of effort for questionable benefit. The analogy with speech doesn't fit for me - it feels much more like that other American passion - self-defence. I could definitely boost the defences of my home - traps and strategically located knives and so on. I could master several martial arts in case I am attacked on the street. But that's all more effort than I can be bothered with. That doesn't mean I leave my front door wide open but a secure front door (that I close and lock) is enough at home and some basic awareness is enough on the street. Likewise, I don't tell everyone I meet my passwords or bank details but yes, I let Amazon save my payment details because the risks seem acceptable.
• kkfx 4y ago
  I have nothing to hide BUT I need to know from others what they know from me to remain in a balance of power situation. SO if Alphabet know what I'm doing I need to know equally what they are doing. In this case I have nothing to hide. If they know much about me and me nothing about them, then I have much to hide. Knowledge is power. Power need to be balanced to be in peace.