5 ms·

"What do you mean you and your friend chat over Signal when there are dozens of other chat apps? Sounds like you two have something to hide, if you ask me." [0]

• devn0ll 1y ago
  These days I use the automated pricing of Uber, and groceries based on the person and/or time of day, what apps you have on your phone, etc as the reason why we DEFINITELY want more privacy. Without it, we are being manipulated because of all the stuff these parasites now know about us. All in the name of "enhancing the customer experience".. #puke
• jenadine 1y ago
  > Whenever I hear someone telling me they have nothing to hide, I ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to me. But I "trust" the gouvernement in a different way that I trust you. - With that access you can also "do" things, like sending messages or delete stuff. - I'm worried that you could judge me in a different way than the government would judge me. Because if you are a friend I care how you see me. But I don't care what the authorities think of me as long as I don't do anything illegal, they won't care. (Just playing devil's advocate here)
  • whyever 1y ago
    > With that access you can also "do" things, like sending messages or delete stuff. If you break E2E encryption, you can likely also impersonate and "do" things.
  • roenxi 1y ago
    Are you a lawyer? How confident are you that you aren't doing something illegal? At 30 seconds of thinking of an interesting example, there are still blasphemy laws on the books [0] in some parts of Europe and it isn't clear how compliant what people say at home is with hate speech laws. And there are a lot of laws out there that most people don't know about. There isn't any reason to think people are obeying the laws in the privacy of their own spaces. Historically there are actually good reasons to think people are disobeying the law, but the laws are stupid and it is better not to check unless there is a political opponent to take out (eg, anti-homosexuality regulations). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
    • graemep 1y ago
      Some countries have defacto blasphemy laws as part of hate speech (in Europe) or social harmony (in Asia) laws. This is covered in the wikipedia article There are definitely more countries that have blasphemy laws than are on the list on that page (e.g. Sri Lanka).
    • Spivak 1y ago
      I, and everyone else, are doing illegal things all the time. As you point out, that's the nature of our legal system. So it's not terribly persuasive to say, "well are you sure you're not doing anything illegal" because it misunderstands the reason why we all haven't gotten arrested. It's not because of privacy but because almost all of us are below the notice of the police. You even cite an example of how privacy doesn't save you in exactly the cases where you think it ought to. There are arguments for maintaining privacy but I don't really think this is one of them.
      • roenxi 1y ago
        You seem to be arguing something slightly off the thread topic. Jenadine typed "But I don't care what the authorities think of me as long as I don't do anything illegal, they won't care". And I'm not sure who you are to say you are "below" the notice of the police. The police are primarily there to police the people at the bottom of society. The higher up the ladder of social status people climb the less they have to do with the police.
  • Almondsetat 1y ago
    That's a really bad devil's advocate, since the authorities care a lot about any behavior, even non (yet) illegal ones
    • Jolter 1y ago
      In some countries they definitely do. In other countries, who knows what they might care about one election from now?
      • Almondsetat 1y ago
        That is further reason to protect your privacy. Maybe today you're perfectly fine, but what about the next election cycle?
  • firefoxd 1y ago
    To continue with your logic. Now, if anyone hacks the "gouvernement", they now have a master key to all our devices.
    • CheeseFromLidl 1y ago
      Pff amateur hour. Hack a dating site and start your own human breeding program.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • b112 1y ago
        Or maybe this hack? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/us/paul-jones-fertility-settlement-colorado.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/us/paul-jones-fertility-s... Or like this guy? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/fertility-doctor-own-sperm-11-times-1.4606814 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/fertility-doctor-own-s... Seems that 'fertility doctor' is a simple hack for personal breeding program. There are more of these cases too.
        • CheeseFromLidl 1y ago
          I wouldn’t call getting a core medical degree followed by several years of postgraduate training a ‘simple hack’.
          • b112 1y ago
            Most people do that to obtain one suitable mate, and have a few offspring. One of these guys had 100+, and until he was caught, had zero child support costs. He's like a cockoo bird.
            • CheeseFromLidl 1y ago
              I follow your logic, but if I look around me the higher the level of education the fewer children and partners.
  • eastbound 1y ago
    FBI employees have been stalking their ex-girlfriend using FBI database. That’s what we mean with “You may be doing things the government doesn’t like” — Abusive boyfriends can be part of a local government.
  • silverliver 1y ago
    Then to use Rossmann's counter-argument (TFV): Let's walk in a police station and have the nice policemen take a look instead.
  • trenchpilgrim 1y ago
    > Because if you are a friend I care how you see me. But I don't care what the authorities think of me as long as I don't do anything illegal, they won't care. Then an election happens and people who very much care about your previously non-illegal behavior gain access to years of historical data.
  • martin-t 1y ago
    1) Trust is a human-to-human interaction which depends on being able to predict future behavior from past behavior (and often other cues, whether rational or not). Trusting an organization is a category error. You cannot trust something composed of people who are regularly replaced every few years and who operate according to written rules ("laws") which they are allowed to change. 2) "as I don't do anything illegal, they won't care" - This is a fallacy. First, they can absolutely harass you even if you end up winning in court eventually. Second, what is legal and illegal changes over time. Third, plenty of things which are illegal (wrong according to legality) are not wrong according to morality (they harm no-one) - they are just illegal because humans who feel the need to control others wrote down a piece of text describing punishments for them. 3) Plenty of countries have stupid laws.: Example 1: it's illegal to approve illegal actions - which basically means you can't ever argue for to change the law to make something legal because you'd be approving it. Usually it's not enforced as such but given how the law is often phrased, it often can be. Example 2: it's illegal to endorse the use of violence - this is the stupidest law there is: - It is by definition contradictory because all governments base their power on violence[0] so according to this law you can't support the existence of the government itself. - It's contradictory in how it treats historical and current actions. You are free to celebrate the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, The French Revolution or Us independence, even though they were all violent actions - they were morally good but illegal under the laws at the time. But you can't say that current dictators should be killed. A friend got a warning from reddit just yesterday for saying not that a certain dictator should be assassinated but that he should be sentenced to death and then executed by anyone in a position to do so. [0]: The government has such a strong monopoly that the violence just needs to be implied and most people will submit and the rest are used as examples "this is why it's stupid to fight a cop".
    • LocalH 1y ago
      > A friend got a warning from reddit just yesterday for saying not that a certain dictator should be assassinated but that he should be sentenced to death and then executed by anyone in a position to do so. A lot of social media today will sanction you if you say such things as "it's ok to punch a Nazi". But won't sanction a Nazi for saying things like "white replacement theory".
• HeartStrings 1y ago
  [flagged]
• belter 1y ago
  > I ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to me. Alternatively, you also ask them to release the Epstein files... :-)
  • cinbun8 1y ago
    IDK man. I don't think everyone has access to that one.
    • OldfieldFund 1y ago
      hey, let he who wasn't there cast the first stone! /s
• like_any_other 1y ago
  That's a bad argument - people trust the government differently than each-other. They also (should) mistrust the government differently. Voting is secret for a reason. How much of a chance do you think we have of meaningfully changing a government, if they can guess with 80% degree accuracy how everyone voted, based on their chats and social networks? When they know ahead of time who is assembling a new political party? When they know all of their friend's friends dirty secrets, and will tactically leak them to the press? Or simply prosecute them for spreading hate/antisemitism/homosexual propaganda/some other vague crime? Knowledge is power. Does it feel like the balance of power is currently tilted too far in favor of individuals?
  • jonplackett 1y ago
    We’re already living in a world where FB and Google know this. Probably many others. No point adding to the list, but still. That ship sailed.
    • like_any_other 1y ago
      "The ship is already leaking, so we may as well drill more holes and make it illegal to plug them, instead of plugging the existing holes."
      • jonplackett 1y ago
        As I said, “no point adding to the list” So I am not suggesting drilling holes. I am pointing out the obvious.
        • Ygg2 1y ago
          You're right. Better to just wait for ship to sink naturally. From the holes.
  • jdhwosnhw 1y ago
    > How much of a chance do you think we have of meaningfully changing a government, if they can guess with 80% degree accuracy how everyone voted, based on their chats and social networks This doesnt really detract from your overall point, but you may be underestimating how easy it already is for the government to tell how you will vote, without use of networking information. Just knowing someone’s educational level and zip code is enough to guess their voting preferences to a high degree of accuracy (the latter component being the reason why gerrymandering is so effective).
• __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  I think it's better to move past the individual question entirely. I tell them to imagine whatever political power they fear the most and ask themselves how it would likely behave if it knew nobody could coordinate against it in secret. I have rather little to hide myself but I want desperately for you to be able to hide something. Otherwise we're together a worse deterrent against authorities behaving badly as we would otherwise be.
  • extraisland 1y ago
    The majority of people I've found will dismiss any arguments like this until something happens to them or someone they know.
    • __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
      I find it quite personally impactful that I've never had to bend the knee to a king. Without the ability of certain historical figures to keep secrets from their king, I think things would be quite different in that regard. If most people can reason about the current historical moment as it relates to policy decisions, well I guess that's an equally dangerous sort of problem.
      • extraisland 1y ago
        > If most people can reason about the current historical moment as it relates to policy decisions, well I guess that's an equally dangerous sort of problem. Firstly I am not sure what "current historical moment" means. Generally most people don't have the will, knowledge or knowhow to understand political policy. Political policy seems to be constantly at odds with reality (if you listen to Dominic Cummings Q/A and/or Interviews he spells out how dysfunctional it is). Even if that is the case more often than not now the power structures in the Western World are setup in a particular way where it is opaque, protects itself and does not serve the people that it is suppose to govern.
• Otek 1y ago
  > I ask them to unlock their phone and hand it to me Let’s say they do that. What would you do next? Go over their photos? Private messages with their so? And then what? Laugh at something that you found there? Would you feel then that you proved some point? I just don’t understand how this scenario would play out in real life
  • j45 1y ago
    Maybe being asked to log into your banking and hand over the phone is an example worth considering.
  • Steven420 1y ago
    The person would likely not want to unlock their phone and let you look around (hopefully) causing them to realize that privacy is important and they shouldn't give it up so easily
    • Otek 1y ago
      Not sure if you noticed but I assumed they will give you their phone, which is possible absolutely, they can do it just to prove a point