5 ms·

Does anyone ever actually use that line? Most people will argue that the trade off in privacy is worth it for security. That is, if you frame your argument suc

Does anyone ever actually use that line? Most people will argue that the trade off in privacy is worth it for security. That is, if you frame your argument such that you believe people don’t understand the trade off it allows you to not engage with the fact they just disagree with your conclusion.

fragmede 7mo ago
The mistake would be reading Hacker News and walking away with the conclusion that because people don't post that reasoning here that it doesn't exist (and even then, you do find that does come up here on occasion). People with "nothing to hide" do actually believe that, and while they may not post it to HN for vigorous debate. The easy counterexample from history is the list of Jews kept by the Netherlands which was later used against them after they were conquered by Nazi Germany, but you'd have to interested in history to buy that reason. Some people simply shrug at the "if you don't have anything to hide then you won't mind me filming your bedroom" scenario as you being the creep in the equation. Some people just don't want the trouble and are fine with being surveiled because the powers that be are doing it.
- smcin 7mo ago
  To correct the mangling of history, there was no "list of Jews kept by the Netherlands [pre-occupation]". There were only pre-existing Dutch population registries of all people, where the personal details collected by the Dutch had included religion, not for any ill purpose. (The Nazis subsequently compiled a list, post-occupation, but that's not what you asserted.)
  - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
    So, the Netherlands kept a list of everyone, and they specifically marked out all the Jews, but that doesn't constitute keeping a list of Jews?
    - magicalhippo 7mo ago
      It wasn't a list of Jews, it was a list of everyone from which Jews could be easily identified. The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy. This is relevant to data collected by companies and governments today. Consider a list of children with their parent names and the parents' preferred pronouns. You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy.
      - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
        > The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy. How does that make the distinction important? The lesson to draw is "you shouldn't keep a list of Jews, whether you think you're doing it for good reasons or not". The list is a list regardless of whether you think calling it a list is fair in some abstract sense. > You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy. Well, you're almost right. Except of course that you do have a list of gays. That's why Grindr having Chinese ownership was seen as a national security risk.
        expedition32 7mo ago
        The Netherlands today is a secular country in which the government doesn't give a flying fuck about your religion or identity. But the situation in 1940 was very different: religion permeated every fabric of society. Mind you the government simply took over the job of record keeping from the churches, temples and synagogues. I am sure Jews today still keep lists about who is a Jew and so does every other religious denomination because such mundane information matters to them.
        magicalhippo 7mo ago
        > Except of course that you do have a list of gays. If you go to your kindergarten and tell them to stop keeping a list of gays they will look at you weird and most likely dismiss you as a nutjob. Because they don't have a list of gays, they just have a list of kids with their parents' names and pronouns. That's why I think it's important to keep the distinction rather than conflate the two like you want to.
- goatlover 7mo ago
  The reasoning sounds like status quo from the majority group who hasn't experienced discrimination and thinks the powers that be could never become like those awful countries with dictators. Also a complete lack of imagination (and knowledge of the past) about how something considered legal and common now could become criminalized.
wat10000 7mo ago
Constantly. Most people have a hard time dealing with tradeoffs and think in absolutes. It goes along with "if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear from police," another disturbingly common sentiment. Some prominent examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22832263 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22832263 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSVJmOajGDe/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSVJmOajGDe/ https://thestandard.nz/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear/ https://thestandard.nz/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-...
Zigurd 7mo ago
Have you ever sat on a jury in a criminal case? A frighteningly high percentage of people will swallow every lie a cop tells, even when thoroughly discredited in cross-examination. There's no shortage of people to guard the concentration camps.
- jrockway 7mo ago
  I've been on a grand jury... the cops lied through their teeth, couldn't keep their stories straight through a prepared monologues reading from notes and ... everyone in the room picked up on it and didn't indict the suspects. Our grand jury was so cynical the DAs stopped giving us cases and made the other two grand juries stay late to make up for the lost capacity. It was great. We did something good. And it was just a bunch of random people from Brooklyn. The establishment likes to pat the establishment on the back but ordinary people seem to know what's up. In my minimal experience, anyway. (One thing to keep in mind... grand juries really are a cross-section of the population, whereas lawyers get to select jurors after talking to them, so there is some selection bias on ordinary juries that grand juries don't have.)
- nwallin 7mo ago
  I was on a jury a few years ago. The defendent was a homeless person with mental health issues. The cop was obviously lying about the one thing that was the core element of the crime. It was like a child telling the truth about every element of the indoor soccer game expect the part where they were the one who kicked the ball. The jury was me, (white) nine other white people, and two brown people. Me and the brown people thought the cop was obviously lying, and was therefore not guilty. The nine other people thought he was guilty. Like the cop was obviously fucking lying. After three days of deliberation we declared a hung jury. I was speaking with the prosecutor afterwards and he mentioned they were going for the felony version of the crime instead of the misdemeanor (he was obviously guilty of the misdemeanor, the felony depended on the element the cop was lying about) because the dude was a bad dude and they needed to get him. I looked him up when I got home. (I didn't look him up during the trial, they expressly forbid you from doing that) He had done something bad and went to prison for four years. He did his time and got out. They were still trying to throw the book at him for bullshit. I looked him up recently. He was never convicted of anything ever again, but died in jail two years after we declared a hung jury. Prosecutor got what he wanted in the end, I suppose.
arealaccount 7mo ago
Yes all the time and it’s not worth debating them as they are not about to say anything interesting. Usually just make a quip about having curtains then move onto discussing just how moist the turkey is this year
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
rootusrootus 7mo ago
> Does anyone ever actually use that line? Not that exact phrase, it is too elaborate. Most people grunt "eh, don't care" and "it's free, right?" The average person really is that apathetic.
kerkeslager 7mo ago
> Does anyone ever actually use that line? Yes, I've heard that exact wording from cops. From normal people, the more common way of saying it is along the lines of "well I don't really care if the cops see anything on my computer".

fragmede 7mo ago

The mistake would be reading Hacker News and walking away with the conclusion that because people don't post that reasoning here that it doesn't exist (and even then, you do find that does come up here on occasion). People with "nothing to hide" do actually believe that, and while they may not post it to HN for vigorous debate. The easy counterexample from history is the list of Jews kept by the Netherlands which was later used against them after they were conquered by Nazi Germany, but you'd have to interested in history to buy that reason. Some people simply shrug at the "if you don't have anything to hide then you won't mind me filming your bedroom" scenario as you being the creep in the equation. Some people just don't want the trouble and are fine with being surveiled because the powers that be are doing it.

smcin 7mo ago
To correct the mangling of history, there was no "list of Jews kept by the Netherlands [pre-occupation]". There were only pre-existing Dutch population registries of all people, where the personal details collected by the Dutch had included religion, not for any ill purpose. (The Nazis subsequently compiled a list, post-occupation, but that's not what you asserted.)
- thaumasiotes 7mo ago
  So, the Netherlands kept a list of everyone, and they specifically marked out all the Jews, but that doesn't constitute keeping a list of Jews?
  - magicalhippo 7mo ago
    It wasn't a list of Jews, it was a list of everyone from which Jews could be easily identified. The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy. This is relevant to data collected by companies and governments today. Consider a list of children with their parent names and the parents' preferred pronouns. You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy.
    - thaumasiotes 7mo ago
      > The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy. How does that make the distinction important? The lesson to draw is "you shouldn't keep a list of Jews, whether you think you're doing it for good reasons or not". The list is a list regardless of whether you think calling it a list is fair in some abstract sense. > You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy. Well, you're almost right. Except of course that you do have a list of gays. That's why Grindr having Chinese ownership was seen as a national security risk.
      - expedition32 7mo ago
        The Netherlands today is a secular country in which the government doesn't give a flying fuck about your religion or identity. But the situation in 1940 was very different: religion permeated every fabric of society. Mind you the government simply took over the job of record keeping from the churches, temples and synagogues. I am sure Jews today still keep lists about who is a Jew and so does every other religious denomination because such mundane information matters to them.
      - magicalhippo 7mo ago
        > Except of course that you do have a list of gays. If you go to your kindergarten and tell them to stop keeping a list of gays they will look at you weird and most likely dismiss you as a nutjob. Because they don't have a list of gays, they just have a list of kids with their parents' names and pronouns. That's why I think it's important to keep the distinction rather than conflate the two like you want to.
goatlover 7mo ago
The reasoning sounds like status quo from the majority group who hasn't experienced discrimination and thinks the powers that be could never become like those awful countries with dictators. Also a complete lack of imagination (and knowledge of the past) about how something considered legal and common now could become criminalized.

wat10000 7mo ago

Constantly. Most people have a hard time dealing with tradeoffs and think in absolutes. It goes along with "if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear from police," another disturbingly common sentiment. Some prominent examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22832263 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22832263 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSVJmOajGDe/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSVJmOajGDe/ https://thestandard.nz/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-nothing-to-fear/ https://thestandard.nz/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide-you-have-...

Zigurd 7mo ago

Have you ever sat on a jury in a criminal case? A frighteningly high percentage of people will swallow every lie a cop tells, even when thoroughly discredited in cross-examination. There's no shortage of people to guard the concentration camps.

jrockway 7mo ago
I've been on a grand jury... the cops lied through their teeth, couldn't keep their stories straight through a prepared monologues reading from notes and ... everyone in the room picked up on it and didn't indict the suspects. Our grand jury was so cynical the DAs stopped giving us cases and made the other two grand juries stay late to make up for the lost capacity. It was great. We did something good. And it was just a bunch of random people from Brooklyn. The establishment likes to pat the establishment on the back but ordinary people seem to know what's up. In my minimal experience, anyway. (One thing to keep in mind... grand juries really are a cross-section of the population, whereas lawyers get to select jurors after talking to them, so there is some selection bias on ordinary juries that grand juries don't have.)
nwallin 7mo ago
I was on a jury a few years ago. The defendent was a homeless person with mental health issues. The cop was obviously lying about the one thing that was the core element of the crime. It was like a child telling the truth about every element of the indoor soccer game expect the part where they were the one who kicked the ball. The jury was me, (white) nine other white people, and two brown people. Me and the brown people thought the cop was obviously lying, and was therefore not guilty. The nine other people thought he was guilty. Like the cop was obviously fucking lying. After three days of deliberation we declared a hung jury. I was speaking with the prosecutor afterwards and he mentioned they were going for the felony version of the crime instead of the misdemeanor (he was obviously guilty of the misdemeanor, the felony depended on the element the cop was lying about) because the dude was a bad dude and they needed to get him. I looked him up when I got home. (I didn't look him up during the trial, they expressly forbid you from doing that) He had done something bad and went to prison for four years. He did his time and got out. They were still trying to throw the book at him for bullshit. I looked him up recently. He was never convicted of anything ever again, but died in jail two years after we declared a hung jury. Prosecutor got what he wanted in the end, I suppose.

arealaccount 7mo ago

Yes all the time and it’s not worth debating them as they are not about to say anything interesting. Usually just make a quip about having curtains then move onto discussing just how moist the turkey is this year

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

rootusrootus 7mo ago

> Does anyone ever actually use that line? Not that exact phrase, it is too elaborate. Most people grunt "eh, don't care" and "it's free, right?" The average person really is that apathetic.

kerkeslager 7mo ago

> Does anyone ever actually use that line? Yes, I've heard that exact wording from cops. From normal people, the more common way of saying it is along the lines of "well I don't really care if the cops see anything on my computer".