3 ms·

The easiest way to combat "you have nothing to hide" is if you were in a country taken over by dictators or terrorists, those leaders don't care and cannot be r

The easiest way to combat "you have nothing to hide" is if you were in a country taken over by dictators or terrorists, those leaders don't care and cannot be reasoned with. They will use the backdoor at any time to punish dissent or any misalignment with their rules. And if people say, "but our country is free", tell them that if your country was not, how would you get back to freedom? Is your software and hardware free and open so that you could do this? If the E.U. really made Chat Control, it would require a DRM that would restrict non-signed OS from running. How would you install freedom software under this situation? The only way is to prevent the implementation of locked hardware in the first place.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> If the E.U. really made Chat Control, it would require a DRM that would restrict non-signed OS from running I have seen this claim, but I don’t believe it is necessarily true. If EU legislation limits encryption on WhatsApp and other messengers offered on the Play Store, then that already implements the law for the vast majority of the population. Us nerds might be able to run whatever OSs we want, but we and even non-nerd sideloaders are nearly a rounding error.
- jessenaser 3y ago
  This is still true. Since most Android phones and all iPhones cannot install freedom software, they don't have to explicitly put a DRM at the hardware level, because it is already there from Apple or most Android manufactures. Apple devices can only install software from a signed key. Most Android phones can only install Android from the device manufacture signed key (unless Google Pixel for example). However, Android allows installing apps from not just the Play Store on most devices, so either the Android OS would need an update, or the hardware would need an update.
eviks 3y ago
How often does this easiest way win you an argument?
- jessenaser 3y ago
  The reason is a lot of people think: 1. My government will use this tech only for good. 2. I don't live in China, so why should I care about that. If you say that your current government loses freedom and how do you go back to freedom, then they think differently. It makes them think they need freedom now in hardware and software, so they can go back to freedom, instead of being permanently stuck in non-freedom.
  - quitit 3y ago
    >1. My government will use this tech only for good. Precisely, and even now there are a steady stream of examples of people in power using tech for no good, here's just a tiny snippet of examples where police had mis-used databases to spy, stalk and harass: USA: N.J. cop used police databases to stalk ex-girlfriend, investigators say https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2023/01/nj-cop-used-police-databases-to-stalk-ex-girlfriend-investigators-say.html https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2023/01/nj-cop-used-police-datab... Officer Fired for Allegedly Using Police Database to Stalk, Harass Women https://www.newsweek.com/officer-fired-allegedly-using-police-database-stalk-harass-women-1615920 https://www.newsweek.com/officer-fired-allegedly-using-polic... Australia: Former policeman accused of using force database to stalk ex-wife and girlfriend https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/former-policeman-accused-of-using-force-database-to-stalk-ex-wife-and-girlfriend-20230303-p5cp8g.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/former-policeman... Former federal police officer faces new charges over stalking of ex-girlfriend https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6138318/former-federal-police-officer-faces-new-charges-over-stalking-of-ex-girlfriend/ https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6138318/former-federa... (Note the two above articles are not the same person) UK: Met police officer 'used CCTV cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend after telling her to take up sex work to pay her bills' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11868575/Met-police-officer-used-CCTV-stalk-ex-girlfriend-telling-sex-work-pay-bills.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11868575/Met-police... Creepy cop saw attractive woman on the road and 'looked up her license plate number so he could stalk her on Facebook' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178556/Officer-Jeffrey-Tyther-used-license-plate-database-stalk-woman-Facebook.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178556/Officer-Jef... The more you look, the more you find - and this barely scratches the surface of ways that systems that hold personal data can be abused. When designing any new law, we must always consider the fact that there is no such thing as "good guys" and "bad guys". The potential for abuse must be extremely limited and the benefits of the law should legitimately outweigh the potential abuses.
EliRivers 3y ago
The easiest way to combat "you have nothing to hide"... How about saying I have lots to hide. I want to hide what I had for breakfast. I want to hide what book I'm reading. I want to hide what time I went to bed. I want to hide how many times I go to the gym each week. I have lots and lots to hide. I am not the property of the state and neither are my actions; I have lots to hide.
- diego_sandoval 3y ago
  "I have everything to hide" sounds like a good slogan to advocate for privacy.
dgroshev 3y ago
This feels a bit redundant. If you were in a country taken over by dictators or terrorists, those dictators or terrorists won't hesitate to deploy a mandatory surveillance regime (see: Xinjiang), they don't need a leg up from the previous democratic government. If your country is not overtaken by dictators or terrorists, the "nothing to hide" argument stands. This hypothetical situation is not made materially worse by the existing backdoor.
- salawat 3y ago
  Setting up a backdoor is more difficult than co-opting one that already exists. It's called the bootstrapping problem, and you posting this right now are the beneficiary of a hell of a lot of bootstrapping. So your assertion fails before you even get to merits.
  - dgroshev 3y ago
    I don't understand what you mean by "bootstrapping" in this context. If you can get your phone or computer randomly inspected and copied on the street, and then thrown in jail or executed for trying to avoid surveillance, there is no need for "backdoors" or "bootstrapping". The government just passes a relevant law and surveils, no need for fancy backdoors when you can do straight interception and bans. Besides, "you need to protest RIGHT NOW so that you can delay total surveillance regime by a year or two if the government eventually turns North Korean" does not sound like a strong call to action to me.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > the "nothing to hide" argument stands No, it doesn't, because it's not an argument. It's just an assertion--and one which, as another poster has pointed out, is false. Everyone has things to hide. But "hide" is not a pejorative term here; it's just a recognition of the fact that people have private lives that they don't want to share with everyone. The so-called nothing to hide "argument" depends on ignoring that fact and treating "hide" as if it had to be something nefarious.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

> If the E.U. really made Chat Control, it would require a DRM that would restrict non-signed OS from running I have seen this claim, but I don’t believe it is necessarily true. If EU legislation limits encryption on WhatsApp and other messengers offered on the Play Store, then that already implements the law for the vast majority of the population. Us nerds might be able to run whatever OSs we want, but we and even non-nerd sideloaders are nearly a rounding error.

jessenaser 3y ago
This is still true. Since most Android phones and all iPhones cannot install freedom software, they don't have to explicitly put a DRM at the hardware level, because it is already there from Apple or most Android manufactures. Apple devices can only install software from a signed key. Most Android phones can only install Android from the device manufacture signed key (unless Google Pixel for example). However, Android allows installing apps from not just the Play Store on most devices, so either the Android OS would need an update, or the hardware would need an update.

eviks 3y ago

How often does this easiest way win you an argument?

jessenaser 3y ago
The reason is a lot of people think: 1. My government will use this tech only for good. 2. I don't live in China, so why should I care about that. If you say that your current government loses freedom and how do you go back to freedom, then they think differently. It makes them think they need freedom now in hardware and software, so they can go back to freedom, instead of being permanently stuck in non-freedom.
- quitit 3y ago
  >1. My government will use this tech only for good. Precisely, and even now there are a steady stream of examples of people in power using tech for no good, here's just a tiny snippet of examples where police had mis-used databases to spy, stalk and harass: USA: N.J. cop used police databases to stalk ex-girlfriend, investigators say https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2023/01/nj-cop-used-police-databases-to-stalk-ex-girlfriend-investigators-say.html https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2023/01/nj-cop-used-police-datab... Officer Fired for Allegedly Using Police Database to Stalk, Harass Women https://www.newsweek.com/officer-fired-allegedly-using-police-database-stalk-harass-women-1615920 https://www.newsweek.com/officer-fired-allegedly-using-polic... Australia: Former policeman accused of using force database to stalk ex-wife and girlfriend https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/former-policeman-accused-of-using-force-database-to-stalk-ex-wife-and-girlfriend-20230303-p5cp8g.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/former-policeman... Former federal police officer faces new charges over stalking of ex-girlfriend https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6138318/former-federal-police-officer-faces-new-charges-over-stalking-of-ex-girlfriend/ https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6138318/former-federa... (Note the two above articles are not the same person) UK: Met police officer 'used CCTV cameras to stalk his ex-girlfriend after telling her to take up sex work to pay her bills' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11868575/Met-police-officer-used-CCTV-stalk-ex-girlfriend-telling-sex-work-pay-bills.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11868575/Met-police... Creepy cop saw attractive woman on the road and 'looked up her license plate number so he could stalk her on Facebook' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178556/Officer-Jeffrey-Tyther-used-license-plate-database-stalk-woman-Facebook.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178556/Officer-Jef... The more you look, the more you find - and this barely scratches the surface of ways that systems that hold personal data can be abused. When designing any new law, we must always consider the fact that there is no such thing as "good guys" and "bad guys". The potential for abuse must be extremely limited and the benefits of the law should legitimately outweigh the potential abuses.

EliRivers 3y ago

The easiest way to combat "you have nothing to hide"... How about saying I have lots to hide. I want to hide what I had for breakfast. I want to hide what book I'm reading. I want to hide what time I went to bed. I want to hide how many times I go to the gym each week. I have lots and lots to hide. I am not the property of the state and neither are my actions; I have lots to hide.

diego_sandoval 3y ago
"I have everything to hide" sounds like a good slogan to advocate for privacy.

dgroshev 3y ago

This feels a bit redundant. If you were in a country taken over by dictators or terrorists, those dictators or terrorists won't hesitate to deploy a mandatory surveillance regime (see: Xinjiang), they don't need a leg up from the previous democratic government. If your country is not overtaken by dictators or terrorists, the "nothing to hide" argument stands. This hypothetical situation is not made materially worse by the existing backdoor.

salawat 3y ago
Setting up a backdoor is more difficult than co-opting one that already exists. It's called the bootstrapping problem, and you posting this right now are the beneficiary of a hell of a lot of bootstrapping. So your assertion fails before you even get to merits.
- dgroshev 3y ago
  I don't understand what you mean by "bootstrapping" in this context. If you can get your phone or computer randomly inspected and copied on the street, and then thrown in jail or executed for trying to avoid surveillance, there is no need for "backdoors" or "bootstrapping". The government just passes a relevant law and surveils, no need for fancy backdoors when you can do straight interception and bans. Besides, "you need to protest RIGHT NOW so that you can delay total surveillance regime by a year or two if the government eventually turns North Korean" does not sound like a strong call to action to me.
pdonis 3y ago
> the "nothing to hide" argument stands No, it doesn't, because it's not an argument. It's just an assertion--and one which, as another poster has pointed out, is false. Everyone has things to hide. But "hide" is not a pejorative term here; it's just a recognition of the fact that people have private lives that they don't want to share with everyone. The so-called nothing to hide "argument" depends on ignoring that fact and treating "hide" as if it had to be something nefarious.