2 ms·

It seems like there are multiple reactions one can have to Snowden type revelations: 1) "I have nothing to hide" (which isn't quite as bad as it sounds - "my s

It seems like there are multiple reactions one can have to Snowden type revelations: 1) "I have nothing to hide" (which isn't quite as bad as it sounds - "my security is being a nobody") 2) "The government shouldn't be spying on people" 3) "The government shouldn't be spying on people but of course they are and you should expect that. Your online privacy is essentially your jobs and you shouldn't use services and expect them to protect your privacy" 4) "Even if the state is always actually going to spy on people in various fashions, we still don't want to accept and normalize this. Forcing the state to 'parallel construction' is better than letting the just publicly exhibit all its surveillance since normalized surveillance has more of a chilling effect. Moreover, institutions have a limited ability to keep their own secrets so surveillance is itself going to periodically come into the open and when it does, attacking it is useful, again, even if we know it will always be an element of modern society". 5) And you can go on and on... Should we allow enough explicit machinery of surveillance to make the state not want to use don't-ask-don't-tell third parties (no but..) and so-forth.

justsomehnguy 3y ago
> which isn't quite as bad as it sounds It is as bad as it sounds: not only the apologists of this rhetoric believe in the false securities of it themselves, but they aggressively try to persuade everyone what if you don't want to be a nobody or have anything what you don't want to share with a complete strangers, including the government - then you are doing something illegal.
- kube-system 3y ago
  It's not so much that digital security isn't important -- it's that if you are not a "nobody", and you have something to hide, digital security is further down your list of your worries. I think too many people think about "digital security" in isolation, without any human context or considerations of threat profile. Digital security without holistic human security is simply a math exercise.
- rixthefox 3y ago
  As a addendum to this. I think many of the J6 crowd thought the same thing when posts they made online were used in evidence against them. You may have nothing to hide, but like Snowden said: "Saying you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say"* In both situations there is a loss of privacy and autonomy. At some point people just shut down, for the same reasons people behave differently when they know they are under surveillance verses when they think they're not. *paraphrasing
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rockskon 3y ago
With point #1..... I've often been concerned that focuses on the most aberrant and rule-breaking of people inevitably broadens the range of the scope of behavior that gets targeted over time. When the most severe of criminality is less prevalent and easier to detect and stop, would law enforcement then not use their remaining resources to go after pettier and pettier crimes? What makes you think your present behavior will always keep you "uninteresting"?

justsomehnguy 3y ago

> which isn't quite as bad as it sounds It is as bad as it sounds: not only the apologists of this rhetoric believe in the false securities of it themselves, but they aggressively try to persuade everyone what if you don't want to be a nobody or have anything what you don't want to share with a complete strangers, including the government - then you are doing something illegal.

kube-system 3y ago
It's not so much that digital security isn't important -- it's that if you are not a "nobody", and you have something to hide, digital security is further down your list of your worries. I think too many people think about "digital security" in isolation, without any human context or considerations of threat profile. Digital security without holistic human security is simply a math exercise.
rixthefox 3y ago
As a addendum to this. I think many of the J6 crowd thought the same thing when posts they made online were used in evidence against them. You may have nothing to hide, but like Snowden said: "Saying you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say"* In both situations there is a loss of privacy and autonomy. At some point people just shut down, for the same reasons people behave differently when they know they are under surveillance verses when they think they're not. *paraphrasing

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rockskon 3y ago

With point #1..... I've often been concerned that focuses on the most aberrant and rule-breaking of people inevitably broadens the range of the scope of behavior that gets targeted over time. When the most severe of criminality is less prevalent and easier to detect and stop, would law enforcement then not use their remaining resources to go after pettier and pettier crimes? What makes you think your present behavior will always keep you "uninteresting"?