13 ms·

The problem with the "I've got nothing to hide" argument is it's not "you" who decides what is "right" or "wrong". The entity doing the "spying" determines what

The problem with the "I've got nothing to hide" argument is it's not "you" who decides what is "right" or "wrong". The entity doing the "spying" determines what is right or wrong. "You" might think "x" is ok, however the "spying" entity may have the opposite view. And it is the "spying" entity's opinion that matters, not yours, because it always them that have the power and authority in determining what is "right" or "wrong". Moreover, definitions change on what is "right" or "wrong".

kvdveer 3y ago
Example: in the 1930, Dutch municipalities would record ethnicity for their citizens. The argument was that ethnicity wasn't something you'd need to hide, and it could be useful should you need to identify yourself. When in 1940 the German occupiers took over, those records turned out to be very useful for their genocide.
- tremon 3y ago
  would record ethnicity *religious affiliation It makes sense that ethnicity would have been recorded as well, but FAFAIK the Germans mostly used the data on religious identity (i.e. which persons were a member of which church community).
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    And that makes what difference exactly...?
    - civilitty 3y ago
      They’re still doing it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany
      - ekianjo 3y ago
        And this is a way you contribute some of your taxes to your religious affiliation
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    The point still stands; any kind of private information like ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexuality - NONE of those are relevant to a government, and ANY of those can be used to identify and persecute people if there is a regime or law change aimed at any of those categories. Tangentially related, it's why things like period trackers are dangerous too; the US has had a spate of anti-abortion laws, the data from those apps (if used) can be used to detect pregnancies and whether they have stopped prematurely. For example.
    - tremon 3y ago
      My reply wasn't meant to refute the parent's point. I wanted to clarify because in today's society ethnicity is a much more contentious data point than religion. Given the prevalence of race-related issues in the media it makes much more sense to a present-day mind to say "maybe we shouldn't be recording ethnicity" than to say "maybe we shouldn't record a person's religion".
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      > "NONE of those are relevant to a government" It is in the context of taxes if you agree that regligious organizations would receive church tax from the government.
      - Skeime 3y ago
        That’s a big if!
Zetice 3y ago
The real problem is that this argument relies on people actually meaning “anything”. It’s a strawman that’s so good, you get people actually trying to argue it, but the real argument isn’t about absolute publicity of information, it’s about providing access to additional information as a means to investigate wrongdoing. Very few people are practically suggesting every single fact ought to be public about a person. Besides, doomsaying that “anything could be illegal!” isn’t backed by anything real or lasting.
- mptest 3y ago
  >"anything [harmful] could be illegal!" isn't backed by anything real or lasting Are you serious? that's a pretty ahistoric view... Being jewish was illegal, being a free black person was illegal, shit, woman having freedom of medical procedure is illegal in some states today! how on earth can you earnestly suggest things won't be made illegal that will harm people
  - Zetice 3y ago
    Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.
    - NovaDudely 3y ago
      Someone once said to me, it is easy to be enlightened when you have a full belly. In the same vein, it is easy to grant social gains when in easy times. But we are in the liminal space between the boom of the 20th century and the blow back from same century of reckless growth. Nowadays a lot of nationalistic rhetoric that would not have flown far has had a lot of traction over the last decade or so. And it is slowly becoming obvious that the frameworks for oppression are being constructed. The idea that we can only go forwards with minor trips along the way is a very narrow interpretation of history. That the example given before was of the Nazis is especially accurate considering it came after the Weinmar Republic that was known to be particularly ahead of the times in terms of social progress and cultural facets. It could be argued that wouldn't be for almost another 70-80 years that they gained back what was taken away in next to now time. Unfortunately, the one thing I have taken away from those that work as war correspondents - do not under estimate how fragile society is and how quickly people will turn against others to try and ensure personal safety. "The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” ― Albert Camus"
belter 3y ago
The main issue is the reversal of presumption of innocence. Assuming privacy is only to hide wrongdoing...
- i8comments 3y ago
  Violating privacy is itself wrongdoing.
kypro 3y ago
I completely agree with this. I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide". I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care about a teen who died in police custody, specifically that this teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey" (Toxteth being a fairly rough inner-city area of Liverpool). The teen he was insulting was dead and unable to take offence, but the police officer on Reddit at the time took offence and decided to prosecute the guy anyway. I'm bringing this up because I don't think most people in the UK realise this. Insulting people online or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution. I mean just this week an autistic child got arrested for calling a lesbian police officer a lesbian here in the UK. We all have something to hide when what's right and wrong is this arbitrary. Legal notes: I do not agree with the views of the Redditor referenced in my comment. I understand how someone may be offended by what he said, but disagree specifically with it being an offence to state an offensive position online. I also do not agree with the behaviour autistic child mentioned in my comment. I understand that being autistic is not an excuse for being offensive. Again, I am only bringing this up because I do not believe it should be an offence to offend. The offensive language used in my comment were direct quotes used specifically to make a point.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care about a teen who died in police custody, specifically that this teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey" " Rowan O’Connell, 23, was hit with a fine by magistrates today over the sick outbust following the death of Mzee, 18. The teenager, described by his mother as a “gentle giant”, died after becoming unwell while detained by police officers at Liverpool ONE in July. O’Connell took to social media website Reddit, where he made baseless allegations, labelling Mzee a “good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey”. He added: “As I say, who gives a f**.” " https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-moment-web-troll-who-11918656 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-mo... So, Not quite what you said. > or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution That's not mild, and you either know it or should know it. > I mean just this week an autistic child got arrested for calling a lesbian police officer a lesbian here in the UK. No link eh? What a surprise. --- edit: this isn't about the rights/wrongs of what was said in this case but your (deliberately?) incomplete description of them. I actually share your concern about freedom of speech but twisting facts doesn't build your case well.
hackernewds 3y ago
Would you agree murder is "wrong" and bad actors should be able to hide their culpability?
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  You're asking whether the ends justify the means; you should think about that yourself. Also, it's a slippery slope, and the end result of that has been philosophised about in media like 1984, where people lost the privacy of their own home, or Minority Report, where people lost the privacy of their own mind.
dionidium 3y ago
There is a kind of sleight of hand at work in this counterargument, which is that nobody is advocating for a secret, extrajudicial, arbitrary set of rules about what is allowed and what isn't. Even if I say I'm OK with the government reading my email, all the work is ahead of them to prove specific charges in a court of law, should I catch their interest. The spy agency does not, in fact, get to decide what's right and wrong. The existence of a surveillance state does not imply the existence of a secret police with extrajudicial powers.
- pixl97 3y ago
  The first thing that authoritarian and fascist states create is the police with extra judicial powers. Like flies and shit, they are always found together.
- nvy 3y ago
  Look up "parallel construction".
  - dionidium 3y ago
    Not sure I see how it's relevant here, since we're granting that the spy agency in this case has every right to gather evidence. The point is that they don't get to unilaterally decide if that evidence constitutes a crime, which is what the original comment suggested.
    - nvy 3y ago
      If the agency finds something they don't like they'll just come up with a plausible way to arrest you for something unrelated.
- qerti 3y ago
  “a secret police with extrajudicial powers” Ever hear of how the IRS targeted certain political groups?
i8comments 3y ago
Basically, knowledge is power, and knowledge of your stuff results in a power imbalance in the privacy violator's favor. What business do they have with my life?
waltwalther 3y ago
"Show me the man, and I will show you the crime."
osigurdson 3y ago
Sounds like you have something to hide (says the creepy creep).
pixl97 3y ago
At Def Con the EFF had a talk on just this addressing abortion rights and the means of the state to use your digital footprints against you if you decide to go to a other state for services. I guess the saying should be "you may not have anything to hide until the moment you do"
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  And then it's too late. Like, early 1900's, it was quite common for people to have their religion listed in your government records or ID. But then one religion became persecuted and hunted down. There's a few commended civilian heroes whose contribution was that they burned or otherwise destroyed records like these, like Willem Arondeus who bombed the Amsterdam public records office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Arondeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Arondeus)
chii 3y ago
I will always counter it with "If you got nothing to hide, then why do you close the door when you're in the toilet?".
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Or ask them to unlock their phones and let you browse everything including their banking app.
devjab 3y ago
I loved how the writers of that Netflix movie about a hacker put it as “I have nothing I want to show you”.
godelski 3y ago
> "I've got nothing to hide" Are you: Jewish? Trans? Gay? A woman? Pregnant? Black? Brown? A furry? Muslim? Christian? Rich? Poor? Need I go on? All these groups have at one time or another (including now) needed to hide. This is a forum full of techies, and I'm sure lots of people don't want to tell everyone they are a techie right away (remember when you'd get punched if you wore Google Glasses?), or talk about their income. If you aren't willing to openly publish your bank statements and browser history, you got something to hide. Friends, family, government, foreign governments, big tech, church, whatever. You probably got something to hide. We just got to stop equating hiding things with doing something nefarious. I don't shut the door when I poop because I'm hiding illegal activities, I just want privacy.
- prox 3y ago
  “Pooping for Privacy” is going to be my new slogan if anyone is bringing it into a discussion from now on and brings up “nothing to hide” argument.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  And that's just the current list of groups / identifiers; this may change over time as well. Like, right now right-wing peoples are terrified / fearmongering that being white and straight will become a targeted minority.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    The logical response of those "right-wing peoples" should be to join the fight to make sure minorities are not targeted.
- dspillett 3y ago
  It isn't just the visibility side of privacy, it is the latent risk of all the stored information that is being tracked and analysed because many of the organisations stalking you through your life are not terribly good at keeping that information secure and some of them are actively selling it around to any bidder. Even if you think that you have nothing specific to hide, identity fruad can be a signifiant risk factor.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
This is a great and succinct way to phrase it, I'm going to stash it.
LatteLazy 3y ago
The problem with your point is it misses the ACTUAL meaning of "I've got nothing to hide". What it actually means is "I'm more average and less likely to be targeted than you". Or "I have less to fear that you, and I'm more worried about you or think I have more to gain from non-averages people being persecuted, than I have to lose from it being used against normies like me".
zelphirkalt 3y ago
This is not the only problem. By giving up too much information, one also endangers the privacy of others. Ones own actions affect others. Those others can be journalists for example. I don't think I need to provide a list of all countries, where being a journalist can be a threat to ones own life.
falsandtru 3y ago
In addition, "I've got nothing to hide" means precisely "I've nothing to my detriment". Needless to say, there is no such thing as a person who has nothing to his or her detriment. Of course, it is impossible to accurately know or predict one's disadvantage precisely. In essence, the removal of privacy is the deprivation of the right to remain silent in order to avoid such predictable and unpredictable situations.

kvdveer 3y ago

Example: in the 1930, Dutch municipalities would record ethnicity for their citizens. The argument was that ethnicity wasn't something you'd need to hide, and it could be useful should you need to identify yourself. When in 1940 the German occupiers took over, those records turned out to be very useful for their genocide.

tremon 3y ago
would record ethnicity *religious affiliation It makes sense that ethnicity would have been recorded as well, but FAFAIK the Germans mostly used the data on religious identity (i.e. which persons were a member of which church community).
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  And that makes what difference exactly...?
  - civilitty 3y ago
    They’re still doing it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      And this is a way you contribute some of your taxes to your religious affiliation
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  The point still stands; any kind of private information like ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexuality - NONE of those are relevant to a government, and ANY of those can be used to identify and persecute people if there is a regime or law change aimed at any of those categories. Tangentially related, it's why things like period trackers are dangerous too; the US has had a spate of anti-abortion laws, the data from those apps (if used) can be used to detect pregnancies and whether they have stopped prematurely. For example.
  - tremon 3y ago
    My reply wasn't meant to refute the parent's point. I wanted to clarify because in today's society ethnicity is a much more contentious data point than religion. Given the prevalence of race-related issues in the media it makes much more sense to a present-day mind to say "maybe we shouldn't be recording ethnicity" than to say "maybe we shouldn't record a person's religion".
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    > "NONE of those are relevant to a government" It is in the context of taxes if you agree that regligious organizations would receive church tax from the government.
    - Skeime 3y ago
      That’s a big if!

Zetice 3y ago

The real problem is that this argument relies on people actually meaning “anything”. It’s a strawman that’s so good, you get people actually trying to argue it, but the real argument isn’t about absolute publicity of information, it’s about providing access to additional information as a means to investigate wrongdoing. Very few people are practically suggesting every single fact ought to be public about a person. Besides, doomsaying that “anything could be illegal!” isn’t backed by anything real or lasting.

mptest 3y ago
>"anything [harmful] could be illegal!" isn't backed by anything real or lasting Are you serious? that's a pretty ahistoric view... Being jewish was illegal, being a free black person was illegal, shit, woman having freedom of medical procedure is illegal in some states today! how on earth can you earnestly suggest things won't be made illegal that will harm people
- Zetice 3y ago
  Every time in modern history western society has started down the path of outlawing some form of existence, we self correct.
  - NovaDudely 3y ago
    Someone once said to me, it is easy to be enlightened when you have a full belly. In the same vein, it is easy to grant social gains when in easy times. But we are in the liminal space between the boom of the 20th century and the blow back from same century of reckless growth. Nowadays a lot of nationalistic rhetoric that would not have flown far has had a lot of traction over the last decade or so. And it is slowly becoming obvious that the frameworks for oppression are being constructed. The idea that we can only go forwards with minor trips along the way is a very narrow interpretation of history. That the example given before was of the Nazis is especially accurate considering it came after the Weinmar Republic that was known to be particularly ahead of the times in terms of social progress and cultural facets. It could be argued that wouldn't be for almost another 70-80 years that they gained back what was taken away in next to now time. Unfortunately, the one thing I have taken away from those that work as war correspondents - do not under estimate how fragile society is and how quickly people will turn against others to try and ensure personal safety. "The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” ― Albert Camus"

belter 3y ago

The main issue is the reversal of presumption of innocence. Assuming privacy is only to hide wrongdoing...

i8comments 3y ago
Violating privacy is itself wrongdoing.

kypro 3y ago

I completely agree with this. I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide". I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for his opinion. It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care about a teen who died in police custody, specifically that this teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey" (Toxteth being a fairly rough inner-city area of Liverpool). The teen he was insulting was dead and unable to take offence, but the police officer on Reddit at the time took offence and decided to prosecute the guy anyway. I'm bringing this up because I don't think most people in the UK realise this. Insulting people online or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution. I mean just this week an autistic child got arrested for calling a lesbian police officer a lesbian here in the UK. We all have something to hide when what's right and wrong is this arbitrary. Legal notes: I do not agree with the views of the Redditor referenced in my comment. I understand how someone may be offended by what he said, but disagree specifically with it being an offence to state an offensive position online. I also do not agree with the behaviour autistic child mentioned in my comment. I understand that being autistic is not an excuse for being offensive. Again, I am only bringing this up because I do not believe it should be an offence to offend. The offensive language used in my comment were direct quotes used specifically to make a point.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
> It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care about a teen who died in police custody, specifically that this teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey" " Rowan O’Connell, 23, was hit with a fine by magistrates today over the sick outbust following the death of Mzee, 18. The teenager, described by his mother as a “gentle giant”, died after becoming unwell while detained by police officers at Liverpool ONE in July. O’Connell took to social media website Reddit, where he made baseless allegations, labelling Mzee a “good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey”. He added: “As I say, who gives a f**.” " https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-moment-web-troll-who-11918656 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-mo... So, Not quite what you said. > or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution That's not mild, and you either know it or should know it. > I mean just this week an autistic child got arrested for calling a lesbian police officer a lesbian here in the UK. No link eh? What a surprise. --- edit: this isn't about the rights/wrongs of what was said in this case but your (deliberately?) incomplete description of them. I actually share your concern about freedom of speech but twisting facts doesn't build your case well.

hackernewds 3y ago

Would you agree murder is "wrong" and bad actors should be able to hide their culpability?

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
You're asking whether the ends justify the means; you should think about that yourself. Also, it's a slippery slope, and the end result of that has been philosophised about in media like 1984, where people lost the privacy of their own home, or Minority Report, where people lost the privacy of their own mind.

dionidium 3y ago

There is a kind of sleight of hand at work in this counterargument, which is that nobody is advocating for a secret, extrajudicial, arbitrary set of rules about what is allowed and what isn't. Even if I say I'm OK with the government reading my email, all the work is ahead of them to prove specific charges in a court of law, should I catch their interest. The spy agency does not, in fact, get to decide what's right and wrong. The existence of a surveillance state does not imply the existence of a secret police with extrajudicial powers.

pixl97 3y ago
The first thing that authoritarian and fascist states create is the police with extra judicial powers. Like flies and shit, they are always found together.
nvy 3y ago
Look up "parallel construction".
- dionidium 3y ago
  Not sure I see how it's relevant here, since we're granting that the spy agency in this case has every right to gather evidence. The point is that they don't get to unilaterally decide if that evidence constitutes a crime, which is what the original comment suggested.
  - nvy 3y ago
    If the agency finds something they don't like they'll just come up with a plausible way to arrest you for something unrelated.
qerti 3y ago
“a secret police with extrajudicial powers” Ever hear of how the IRS targeted certain political groups?

i8comments 3y ago

Basically, knowledge is power, and knowledge of your stuff results in a power imbalance in the privacy violator's favor. What business do they have with my life?

waltwalther 3y ago

"Show me the man, and I will show you the crime."

osigurdson 3y ago

Sounds like you have something to hide (says the creepy creep).

pixl97 3y ago

At Def Con the EFF had a talk on just this addressing abortion rights and the means of the state to use your digital footprints against you if you decide to go to a other state for services. I guess the saying should be "you may not have anything to hide until the moment you do"

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
And then it's too late. Like, early 1900's, it was quite common for people to have their religion listed in your government records or ID. But then one religion became persecuted and hunted down. There's a few commended civilian heroes whose contribution was that they burned or otherwise destroyed records like these, like Willem Arondeus who bombed the Amsterdam public records office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Arondeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Arondeus)

chii 3y ago

I will always counter it with "If you got nothing to hide, then why do you close the door when you're in the toilet?".

ekianjo 3y ago
Or ask them to unlock their phones and let you browse everything including their banking app.

devjab 3y ago

I loved how the writers of that Netflix movie about a hacker put it as “I have nothing I want to show you”.

godelski 3y ago

> "I've got nothing to hide" Are you: Jewish? Trans? Gay? A woman? Pregnant? Black? Brown? A furry? Muslim? Christian? Rich? Poor? Need I go on? All these groups have at one time or another (including now) needed to hide. This is a forum full of techies, and I'm sure lots of people don't want to tell everyone they are a techie right away (remember when you'd get punched if you wore Google Glasses?), or talk about their income. If you aren't willing to openly publish your bank statements and browser history, you got something to hide. Friends, family, government, foreign governments, big tech, church, whatever. You probably got something to hide. We just got to stop equating hiding things with doing something nefarious. I don't shut the door when I poop because I'm hiding illegal activities, I just want privacy.

prox 3y ago
“Pooping for Privacy” is going to be my new slogan if anyone is bringing it into a discussion from now on and brings up “nothing to hide” argument.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
And that's just the current list of groups / identifiers; this may change over time as well. Like, right now right-wing peoples are terrified / fearmongering that being white and straight will become a targeted minority.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  The logical response of those "right-wing peoples" should be to join the fight to make sure minorities are not targeted.
dspillett 3y ago
It isn't just the visibility side of privacy, it is the latent risk of all the stored information that is being tracked and analysed because many of the organisations stalking you through your life are not terribly good at keeping that information secure and some of them are actively selling it around to any bidder. Even if you think that you have nothing specific to hide, identity fruad can be a signifiant risk factor.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

This is a great and succinct way to phrase it, I'm going to stash it.

LatteLazy 3y ago

The problem with your point is it misses the ACTUAL meaning of "I've got nothing to hide". What it actually means is "I'm more average and less likely to be targeted than you". Or "I have less to fear that you, and I'm more worried about you or think I have more to gain from non-averages people being persecuted, than I have to lose from it being used against normies like me".

zelphirkalt 3y ago

This is not the only problem. By giving up too much information, one also endangers the privacy of others. Ones own actions affect others. Those others can be journalists for example. I don't think I need to provide a list of all countries, where being a journalist can be a threat to ones own life.

falsandtru 3y ago

In addition, "I've got nothing to hide" means precisely "I've nothing to my detriment". Needless to say, there is no such thing as a person who has nothing to his or her detriment. Of course, it is impossible to accurately know or predict one's disadvantage precisely. In essence, the removal of privacy is the deprivation of the right to remain silent in order to avoid such predictable and unpredictable situations.