5 ms·

Weird thing is, nobody seems to care. I care, it's one of the reasons I will keep voting for the pirate party.

by Proleps 13y ago

rvschuilenburg 13y ago
Same here, and it confuses the hell out of me. Everytime i tell someone about yet-another-privacy-issue, and each time they answer "well, i have nothing to hide".
- bincat 13y ago
  You should show them this snippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7HQ_zbdIw#t=8m00s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7HQ_zbdIw#t=8m00s But yeah, until they see negative results, I doubt majority is going to start caring.
  - nsmartt 13y ago
    Thank you. This is an argument that I've made after much frustration and many other points. It never occurred to me to make it the center of my argument. You have no idea how glad I am to have seen this.
- kriro 13y ago
  I think the standard counterargument is started by asking them if they have any curtains or blinds and if so, why? [or you can ask them if they'd be willing to have a streaming camera installed in their bedroom]
  - ppod 13y ago
    People who argue very strongly against government intrusion often seem to ignore the distinction between private and public spaces. I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces. Anywhere that a policeman could stand and watch; I see a camera as an efficient aid. I won't let a policeman into my house unless they have a warrant - and not because I have anything to hide, but because upholding the principle is important.
    - bennyg 13y ago
      Then surely those cameras should be available to the public as well. If anywhere a policeman can stand also counts as anywhere anyone can stand, and if it's a public space as you say, then the people have just as much right to see what's going on as the police. Public is public, right?
      - BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
        Is that not already the case with, for instance, police dash cams? Can't those be requested via the FOIA? (Except when the department decides the footage is "missing"/"corrupted"/"accidentally deleted"/etc., of course)
    - MereInterest 13y ago
      There is a distinction between public and private places, but there are also grades of privacy. If I am in my own home, I expect that no one will be watching me. If I am on a podium in front of a crowd, I expect that everyone will be watching me. If I am walking in a public area, I expect that only people who know me will notice me. It is that last expectation that omnipresent cameras shatter.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      The difference between a person and a camera is that people get tired, miss things, have to eat, and cost a lot more money to maintain. For this reason, people are deployed only where necessary, while cameras can be deployed much more widely. It is the weighing of cost associated with sending a person that used to protect privacy in public places, but with electronic surveillance we lose that cost consideration as a check against surveillance.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces." I do, because it increases the power of an already too-powerful police force. America is the world leader in throwing people in prison, we really do not need to give the police any more tools.
  - bragh 13y ago
    That counterargument doesn't work in the Netherlands: http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-curtains/ http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-c...
    - arianvanp 13y ago
      You're trying to prove a point by giving a single example. Those pictures on that website are expensive houses in Amsterdam where people like to show off their wealth in a "non-intrusive" way. Once you get into sub-urbal and rural areas, you won't find a house without curtains. At least in the whole 10 blocks around me, I haven't seen a single house without blinds or curtains.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    Someone I don't know listening to my phone conversation? Who cares. My neighbor seeing me naked? Now I care. That's the answer you'd get.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      Actually, in western Europe I'd expect the exact opposite reaction.
- betterunix 13y ago
  To which you respond, "Then why do you have your curtains drawn?" Most people parrot the "I have nothing to hide" line without realizing that they actually do want some measure of privacy. You can also put it in terms of hackers: maybe they have nothing to hide from the government, but what about from hackers? People seem to be more concerned about that sort of thing. The same technologies that would thwart the NSA also happen to be good at thwarting other attackers.
- jaekwon 13y ago
  Perhaps what they really mean is, "I have nothing to lose".? If you have nothing to lose, then you only have information to gain by invading others' privacy.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
I think people did care but we see these stories so regularly now, even though I know it's a bad thing, I find it hard to care.
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  Second, they get in the news once, minor uproar (particularly on the internet), then... nothing. Maybe in cases like the The Pirate Bay blockade, which gets through to certain news sites from time to time whenever they get a new domain name or host, where they remind the audience that for that single web page, ISP's have been made to censor it by court order (and need to update their blocked domain names / IP addresses)
  - pyrocat 13y ago
    and this is why media conglomeration is a bad thing.
- e3pi 13y ago
  >... I find it hard to care. A name defines, your name and your privacy; defines you exclusive of everything and everybody else. Without privacy, arguably you do not exist.
e3pi 13y ago
Vote: Pi Rate Party International(PRPI) ...Krypto-Anarchic-Socialists?

Weird thing is, nobody seems to care. I care, it's one of the reasons I will keep voting for the pirate party.

by Proleps 13y ago

Weird thing is, nobody seems to care. I care, it's one of the reasons I will keep voting for the pirate party.

Same here, and it confuses the hell out of me. Everytime i tell someone about yet-another-privacy-issue, and each time they answer "well, i have nothing to hide".

bincat 13y ago
You should show them this snippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7HQ_zbdIw#t=8m00s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7HQ_zbdIw#t=8m00s But yeah, until they see negative results, I doubt majority is going to start caring.
- nsmartt 13y ago
  Thank you. This is an argument that I've made after much frustration and many other points. It never occurred to me to make it the center of my argument. You have no idea how glad I am to have seen this.
kriro 13y ago
I think the standard counterargument is started by asking them if they have any curtains or blinds and if so, why? [or you can ask them if they'd be willing to have a streaming camera installed in their bedroom]
- ppod 13y ago
  People who argue very strongly against government intrusion often seem to ignore the distinction between private and public spaces. I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces. Anywhere that a policeman could stand and watch; I see a camera as an efficient aid. I won't let a policeman into my house unless they have a warrant - and not because I have anything to hide, but because upholding the principle is important.
  - bennyg 13y ago
    Then surely those cameras should be available to the public as well. If anywhere a policeman can stand also counts as anywhere anyone can stand, and if it's a public space as you say, then the people have just as much right to see what's going on as the police. Public is public, right?
    - BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
      Is that not already the case with, for instance, police dash cams? Can't those be requested via the FOIA? (Except when the department decides the footage is "missing"/"corrupted"/"accidentally deleted"/etc., of course)
  - MereInterest 13y ago
    There is a distinction between public and private places, but there are also grades of privacy. If I am in my own home, I expect that no one will be watching me. If I am on a podium in front of a crowd, I expect that everyone will be watching me. If I am walking in a public area, I expect that only people who know me will notice me. It is that last expectation that omnipresent cameras shatter.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    The difference between a person and a camera is that people get tired, miss things, have to eat, and cost a lot more money to maintain. For this reason, people are deployed only where necessary, while cameras can be deployed much more widely. It is the weighing of cost associated with sending a person that used to protect privacy in public places, but with electronic surveillance we lose that cost consideration as a check against surveillance.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "I have no problem with any amount of recording equipment in public spaces." I do, because it increases the power of an already too-powerful police force. America is the world leader in throwing people in prison, we really do not need to give the police any more tools.
- bragh 13y ago
  That counterargument doesn't work in the Netherlands: http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-curtains/ http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/11/24/no-8-not-owning-c...
  - arianvanp 13y ago
    You're trying to prove a point by giving a single example. Those pictures on that website are expensive houses in Amsterdam where people like to show off their wealth in a "non-intrusive" way. Once you get into sub-urbal and rural areas, you won't find a house without curtains. At least in the whole 10 blocks around me, I haven't seen a single house without blinds or curtains.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Someone I don't know listening to my phone conversation? Who cares. My neighbor seeing me naked? Now I care. That's the answer you'd get.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    Actually, in western Europe I'd expect the exact opposite reaction.
betterunix 13y ago
To which you respond, "Then why do you have your curtains drawn?" Most people parrot the "I have nothing to hide" line without realizing that they actually do want some measure of privacy. You can also put it in terms of hackers: maybe they have nothing to hide from the government, but what about from hackers? People seem to be more concerned about that sort of thing. The same technologies that would thwart the NSA also happen to be good at thwarting other attackers.
jaekwon 13y ago
Perhaps what they really mean is, "I have nothing to lose".? If you have nothing to lose, then you only have information to gain by invading others' privacy.

k-mcgrady 13y ago

I think people did care but we see these stories so regularly now, even though I know it's a bad thing, I find it hard to care.

Cthulhu_ 13y ago
Second, they get in the news once, minor uproar (particularly on the internet), then... nothing. Maybe in cases like the The Pirate Bay blockade, which gets through to certain news sites from time to time whenever they get a new domain name or host, where they remind the audience that for that single web page, ISP's have been made to censor it by court order (and need to update their blocked domain names / IP addresses)
- pyrocat 13y ago
  and this is why media conglomeration is a bad thing.
e3pi 13y ago
>... I find it hard to care. A name defines, your name and your privacy; defines you exclusive of everything and everybody else. Without privacy, arguably you do not exist.

e3pi 13y ago

Vote: Pi Rate Party International(PRPI) ...Krypto-Anarchic-Socialists?