6 ms·

Whenever things like this come up with the non-tech folk I deal with, the conversation tends to turn to "Oh, well, I don't have any of that sort of stuff, so no

by YPPH 2y ago

Whenever things like this come up with the non-tech folk I deal with, the conversation tends to turn to "Oh, well, I don't have any of that sort of stuff, so nothing to worry about", or "Good, child abusers should be in jail". What are people's talking points against these views?

bondarchuk 2y ago
Well, what are your own arguments against those views? You can just use those.
throwbadubadu 2y ago
There are much better longer argumentations and essays out there which are easy to find.. two badly rephrased prime args for me: - It is not about you but fundamental rights in our society that are important. Argueing like "I don't have any of that sort of stuff" is like saying "I'm not gay, so what do I care about gay rights" (replace with any disadvantaged group and don't blame me for bad example please). - Things can quickly change, even when done with nothing bad in mind. You find countless misuses with collected data, prime example is again the Nazis that rolled into Dutch (or Belgium?) and abused the recorded religions. However, today in almost any democracy imagination has not to be taken too far that another worse power comes to real power. Just look at threats Trump, or mostly right wing parties in Europe already made.
- andrelaszlo 2y ago
  "Would you like the people on the far [left|right] to have full access to your communications, and to those of their enemies, in case they end up in a position of power (or access to this data some other way)."
arghwhat 2y ago
"You also don't do anything illegal in your mail and email, so the government can also read those, right? And you never speed so the government can get a black box in your car, right? And you never download anything illegal so the government can monitor all activity on your PC, right? And you never do anything wrong against your company so your company can also monitor all your activity, right?" "Would you mind if all your online activity and chat histories were sent to ChatGPT live, with it deciding if you're a suspect or a criminal? If not, why are you okay with a vague system designed by politicians?" "If you or your partner is short and look young relative to the average Caucasian, for example due to being from certain Asian countries with low average height, would you trust that ChatGPT wouldn't erroneously classify pictures as being of a minor and mark you a criminal?" People tend to get sensitive when you expand the idea a bit and give them an example of the technical part that they can relate to.
- klabb3 2y ago
  > "You also don't do anything illegal in your mail and email, so the government can also read those, right? And you never speed so the government can get a black box in your car, right? And you never download anything illegal so the government can monitor all activity on your PC, right? And you never do anything wrong against your company so your company can also monitor all your activity, right?" I know a lot of people who would just go “yes?”. The same people would freak out if there was a camera in their Airbnb. Or if they thought two steps ahead and realized their sexy photos or pictures of their kids would be viewed by some 20 year old moderator-reviewer type. Or would want to make revenge porn criminal, or even deepfake porn. Let alone any type of concern for journalists and their sources. People for some reason don’t think these laws apply to them, that they would just be ignored by any snooping eyes because of course they look only for real criminals like terrorists and pedos. These proposals should ideally cause the same type of worry as being stopped by a cop even if you didn’t do anything wrong.
  - arghwhat 2y ago
    The second and third line of arguing, underlining the technical issue rather than privacy, might still work for those individuals. There will always be people you cannot convince however, either because they have different ideologies or being in a place in life where all arguments wear off and they have no reason to spare it another thought. We only need a majority in the voting group, not everyone.
- fennecbutt 2y ago
  The black box one would annoy many people he he, the general driving attitude I've seen is that more people speed than those who don't. And they feel entitled to speed. Hence why people hate speed cameras "they just trying to make money" Well don't speed then, and you won't have to give em money!
gondo 2y ago
Couple of ideas of top of my head: - Think of the most embarrassing thing you've done, and now tell me about it - Unlock and show me your phone so I can view all your messages, photos and apps Now that we've established that you have something to hide, we can talk about where the line is.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  > Unlock and show me your phone so I can view all your messages, photos and apps This sounds like a very hands on counter argument. I'm gonna use that the next time this comes up in conversation.
  - fennecbutt 2y ago
    Then they'll say "but you're not the government, I trust the government bla bla"
- YPPH 2y ago
  This is actually a pretty good idea.
- delecti 2y ago
  On that last sentence, I wouldn't say "something to hide". I like to think of it in terms of highlighting the difference between secret and private. There are lots of things that I'm not ashamed of, or protective of for the sake of my safety, but still have a totally valid desire to keep private. Going to the bathroom isn't secret, but it's still private.
  - gs17 2y ago
    "Something to hide" specifically makes sense in the context of the phrase "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
- raspyberr 2y ago
  I think that second retort that everyone says is so weak. People are trading their privacy for services not for nothing. Think how many people would actually give you their phone if you said you'd give them $20 or cleaned their house or something.
logicchains 2y ago
If you're talking to someone on the left, you can say "if the party you don't like gets into power they could use this to track and punish people for getting abortions", and if they're on the right you can say "if the party you don't like gets into power they could use this to track and punish people for owning guns, not getting vaccinated and making politically incorrect jokes".
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  These are going to fail in a lot of EU nations because abortions and gun ownership aren't issues associated with (current) politics.
dijit 2y ago
My normal stance is to compare it to using the toilet. Everyone knows what you're doing in the toilet, yet we do not use glass walls for toilet stall doors. Some people abuse this and do drugs or hide in toilets, but does that genuinely mean we should have glass doors for all our toilets in society? What about toilets at home? Usually they start to see the problem.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  South Park did this well. "Toilet Safety Administration" https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Toilet_Safety_Administration https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Toilet_Safety_Administrati...
- zajio1am 2y ago
  > Some people abuse this and do drugs or hide in toilets, but does that genuinely mean we should have glass doors for all our toilets in society? For many europeans, US-style toilet cubicles (with large space between floor and wall) feels pretty much like glass doors. I wonder why people tolerate that.
probably_wrong 2y ago
I collected some examples of "actually, you do have something to hide" in this older comment of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37114262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37114262 Today I'd add to the list the discussion on Israel using AI to decide who to bomb. AI isn't smart enough to understand that people who just bought a washing machine shouldn't be shown ads for washing machines, but apparently it's good enough for deciding who's a terrorist. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 Having said that, I personally know someone who was arrested and mistreated by police forces for being related to a criminal, and yet I've never managed to convince them that maybe the police shouldn't have that kind of power. In those cases I typically consider that the person discussing probably won't change their view, but maybe I can still reach those listening to the conversation.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  I doubt ad targeting actually uses AI, at least not in the quite heavy form we currently associate with the term, but the rest of your point stands. However, I am not sure if using examples of something currently considered crime will work well, especially as people will actively deny anything other than petty violations like speeding. It is valid of course, in particular when combined with inhumane regimes and authorities, or even regular ones that do not see lightly on people airing their dirty laundry, but convincing others takes more than just having a correct argument...
  - Macha 2y ago
    Ad targeting has long offered ML based targeting models. Usually with product names like "audience extension", "predictive segments", "likely X buyers". LLMs have taken over the "AI" term in general discussion, but the strengths and weaknesses are not too different here (just more computationally efficient).
PurpleRamen 2y ago
Failure happens, abuse happens. And then start talking about the costs..
127 2y ago
"So you are also OK with the government installing a 24/7 hour surveillance camera into your childs room, so they can make sure nothing bad is happening?"
Scandiravian 2y ago
"then why does your bathroom have a door with a lock"
thefz 2y ago
> What are people's talking points against these views? If you have nothing to hide then unlock your phone and let me dig in. And give me all your passwords, you have nothing to hide, right? 0% of them will comply. Or you can cite the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
visarga 2y ago
If you got nothing to hide it means you don't have anything worth protecting or competing for, and you 100% trust the system not to do wrong with your information, no matter who gets the political power. You also don't ever need to protest or demand change against ingrained power.
wongarsu 2y ago
Straight from the article (shortened by me): "The promise that professional secrets should not be affected by chat control is a lie cast in paragraphs. [...] Chat control inevitably threatens to leak intimate photos" On a more abstract level: in a democracy you need to consider the abuse potential of a law, and you need to leave open ways for peaceful reform if our institutions fail. That's why confidential communication channels between citizens are important, and intercepting private communication has to always come with strong checks and balances
shepherdjerred 2y ago
Can you hand me your phone? I want to go through your texts and photos.
V__ 2y ago
Just ask them for all their passwords or to unlock their phone and hand it over. You just want to take a look, they have nothing to hide. No big deal, right?
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
"Can I see your search history?" "Can I see your chat history?"
noman-land 2y ago
Snowden had a simple and good one. "Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
ArnoVW 2y ago
“Sure you have nothing to hide from this state. What if <their political extreme opposite> comes to power and starts to <their nightmare image>. Because they will inherit all the powers that the current, good state has” Jewish Dutch people willingly filled in their religion during a census in the 1930’s. A decade later 95% of them were exterminated. The nazis appreciated the organized nature of the Dutch.
leshenka 2y ago
"Nothing to hide, eh? Write a post on a social network of choice detailing when are you not home, a photo of your key to the door, and a credit card details."

by YPPH 2y ago

bondarchuk 2y ago

Well, what are your own arguments against those views? You can just use those.

throwbadubadu 2y ago

There are much better longer argumentations and essays out there which are easy to find.. two badly rephrased prime args for me: - It is not about you but fundamental rights in our society that are important. Argueing like "I don't have any of that sort of stuff" is like saying "I'm not gay, so what do I care about gay rights" (replace with any disadvantaged group and don't blame me for bad example please). - Things can quickly change, even when done with nothing bad in mind. You find countless misuses with collected data, prime example is again the Nazis that rolled into Dutch (or Belgium?) and abused the recorded religions. However, today in almost any democracy imagination has not to be taken too far that another worse power comes to real power. Just look at threats Trump, or mostly right wing parties in Europe already made.

andrelaszlo 2y ago
"Would you like the people on the far [left|right] to have full access to your communications, and to those of their enemies, in case they end up in a position of power (or access to this data some other way)."

arghwhat 2y ago

"You also don't do anything illegal in your mail and email, so the government can also read those, right? And you never speed so the government can get a black box in your car, right? And you never download anything illegal so the government can monitor all activity on your PC, right? And you never do anything wrong against your company so your company can also monitor all your activity, right?" "Would you mind if all your online activity and chat histories were sent to ChatGPT live, with it deciding if you're a suspect or a criminal? If not, why are you okay with a vague system designed by politicians?" "If you or your partner is short and look young relative to the average Caucasian, for example due to being from certain Asian countries with low average height, would you trust that ChatGPT wouldn't erroneously classify pictures as being of a minor and mark you a criminal?" People tend to get sensitive when you expand the idea a bit and give them an example of the technical part that they can relate to.

klabb3 2y ago
> "You also don't do anything illegal in your mail and email, so the government can also read those, right? And you never speed so the government can get a black box in your car, right? And you never download anything illegal so the government can monitor all activity on your PC, right? And you never do anything wrong against your company so your company can also monitor all your activity, right?" I know a lot of people who would just go “yes?”. The same people would freak out if there was a camera in their Airbnb. Or if they thought two steps ahead and realized their sexy photos or pictures of their kids would be viewed by some 20 year old moderator-reviewer type. Or would want to make revenge porn criminal, or even deepfake porn. Let alone any type of concern for journalists and their sources. People for some reason don’t think these laws apply to them, that they would just be ignored by any snooping eyes because of course they look only for real criminals like terrorists and pedos. These proposals should ideally cause the same type of worry as being stopped by a cop even if you didn’t do anything wrong.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  The second and third line of arguing, underlining the technical issue rather than privacy, might still work for those individuals. There will always be people you cannot convince however, either because they have different ideologies or being in a place in life where all arguments wear off and they have no reason to spare it another thought. We only need a majority in the voting group, not everyone.
fennecbutt 2y ago
The black box one would annoy many people he he, the general driving attitude I've seen is that more people speed than those who don't. And they feel entitled to speed. Hence why people hate speed cameras "they just trying to make money" Well don't speed then, and you won't have to give em money!

gondo 2y ago

Couple of ideas of top of my head: - Think of the most embarrassing thing you've done, and now tell me about it - Unlock and show me your phone so I can view all your messages, photos and apps Now that we've established that you have something to hide, we can talk about where the line is.

baobabKoodaa 2y ago
> Unlock and show me your phone so I can view all your messages, photos and apps This sounds like a very hands on counter argument. I'm gonna use that the next time this comes up in conversation.
- fennecbutt 2y ago
  Then they'll say "but you're not the government, I trust the government bla bla"
YPPH 2y ago
This is actually a pretty good idea.
delecti 2y ago
On that last sentence, I wouldn't say "something to hide". I like to think of it in terms of highlighting the difference between secret and private. There are lots of things that I'm not ashamed of, or protective of for the sake of my safety, but still have a totally valid desire to keep private. Going to the bathroom isn't secret, but it's still private.
- gs17 2y ago
  "Something to hide" specifically makes sense in the context of the phrase "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
raspyberr 2y ago
I think that second retort that everyone says is so weak. People are trading their privacy for services not for nothing. Think how many people would actually give you their phone if you said you'd give them $20 or cleaned their house or something.

logicchains 2y ago

If you're talking to someone on the left, you can say "if the party you don't like gets into power they could use this to track and punish people for getting abortions", and if they're on the right you can say "if the party you don't like gets into power they could use this to track and punish people for owning guns, not getting vaccinated and making politically incorrect jokes".

BlueTemplar 2y ago
These are going to fail in a lot of EU nations because abortions and gun ownership aren't issues associated with (current) politics.

dijit 2y ago

My normal stance is to compare it to using the toilet. Everyone knows what you're doing in the toilet, yet we do not use glass walls for toilet stall doors. Some people abuse this and do drugs or hide in toilets, but does that genuinely mean we should have glass doors for all our toilets in society? What about toilets at home? Usually they start to see the problem.

HPsquared 2y ago
South Park did this well. "Toilet Safety Administration" https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Toilet_Safety_Administration https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Toilet_Safety_Administrati...
zajio1am 2y ago
> Some people abuse this and do drugs or hide in toilets, but does that genuinely mean we should have glass doors for all our toilets in society? For many europeans, US-style toilet cubicles (with large space between floor and wall) feels pretty much like glass doors. I wonder why people tolerate that.

probably_wrong 2y ago

I collected some examples of "actually, you do have something to hide" in this older comment of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37114262 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37114262 Today I'd add to the list the discussion on Israel using AI to decide who to bomb. AI isn't smart enough to understand that people who just bought a washing machine shouldn't be shown ads for washing machines, but apparently it's good enough for deciding who's a terrorist. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 Having said that, I personally know someone who was arrested and mistreated by police forces for being related to a criminal, and yet I've never managed to convince them that maybe the police shouldn't have that kind of power. In those cases I typically consider that the person discussing probably won't change their view, but maybe I can still reach those listening to the conversation.

arghwhat 2y ago
I doubt ad targeting actually uses AI, at least not in the quite heavy form we currently associate with the term, but the rest of your point stands. However, I am not sure if using examples of something currently considered crime will work well, especially as people will actively deny anything other than petty violations like speeding. It is valid of course, in particular when combined with inhumane regimes and authorities, or even regular ones that do not see lightly on people airing their dirty laundry, but convincing others takes more than just having a correct argument...
- Macha 2y ago
  Ad targeting has long offered ML based targeting models. Usually with product names like "audience extension", "predictive segments", "likely X buyers". LLMs have taken over the "AI" term in general discussion, but the strengths and weaknesses are not too different here (just more computationally efficient).

PurpleRamen 2y ago

Failure happens, abuse happens. And then start talking about the costs..

127 2y ago

"So you are also OK with the government installing a 24/7 hour surveillance camera into your childs room, so they can make sure nothing bad is happening?"

Scandiravian 2y ago

"then why does your bathroom have a door with a lock"

thefz 2y ago

> What are people's talking points against these views? If you have nothing to hide then unlock your phone and let me dig in. And give me all your passwords, you have nothing to hide, right? 0% of them will comply. Or you can cite the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

visarga 2y ago

If you got nothing to hide it means you don't have anything worth protecting or competing for, and you 100% trust the system not to do wrong with your information, no matter who gets the political power. You also don't ever need to protest or demand change against ingrained power.

wongarsu 2y ago

Straight from the article (shortened by me): "The promise that professional secrets should not be affected by chat control is a lie cast in paragraphs. [...] Chat control inevitably threatens to leak intimate photos" On a more abstract level: in a democracy you need to consider the abuse potential of a law, and you need to leave open ways for peaceful reform if our institutions fail. That's why confidential communication channels between citizens are important, and intercepting private communication has to always come with strong checks and balances

shepherdjerred 2y ago

Can you hand me your phone? I want to go through your texts and photos.

V__ 2y ago

Just ask them for all their passwords or to unlock their phone and hand it over. You just want to take a look, they have nothing to hide. No big deal, right?

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

"Can I see your search history?" "Can I see your chat history?"

noman-land 2y ago

Snowden had a simple and good one. "Ultimately, arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

ArnoVW 2y ago

“Sure you have nothing to hide from this state. What if <their political extreme opposite> comes to power and starts to <their nightmare image>. Because they will inherit all the powers that the current, good state has” Jewish Dutch people willingly filled in their religion during a census in the 1930’s. A decade later 95% of them were exterminated. The nazis appreciated the organized nature of the Dutch.

leshenka 2y ago

"Nothing to hide, eh? Write a post on a social network of choice detailing when are you not home, a photo of your key to the door, and a credit card details."