5 ms·

It would be great to break through the "if you have nothing to hide" line and push that responsible citizenry need security (and cryptography) as well. I am al

by aray 13y ago

It would be great to break through the "if you have nothing to hide" line and push that responsible citizenry need security (and cryptography) as well. I am also the other.

malandrew 13y ago
I think Martin Fowler has written one of the better arguments that appeal to the "I have nothing to hide" crowd, in "Privacy protects bothersome people"[0]. It's worth sharing with anyone who thinks that just because they have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean that they are not beneficiaries of those that do have something to hide. Privacy is one of the few things that protect those that protect us from the transgressions of our government. [0] http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html
- Symmetry 13y ago
  I actually think the biggest danger is the NSA digging up dirt on politicians a la J. Edgar Hoover. If details of my sex life were made public I'd be embarrassed but my employer wouldn't care and my life would go on. For a politician, though, scandal means losing your job.
  - sseveran 13y ago
    Unless of course you can be made to look like a bad person and the twitterverse blows up.
mpyne 13y ago
> It would be great to break through the "if you have nothing to hide" line and push that responsible citizenry need security (and cryptography) as well. Who (of any relevance) on the NSA or DoJ side is saying people don't need crypto or security though? I've seen a Congressman use the 'nothing to hide' line but haven't seen it much elsewhere even among NSA's defenders. The government does seem to be saying that if you're only concerned about the government possibly seeing your stuff, that you don't have anything to worry about (as long as you're not recruiting for AQ or something) as the NSA doesn't have time to care about you anyways, but that's not quite the same concept. Plus even that has an adequate justification if we assume there is some bizarro universe where the NSA might actually only be doing their job (as everyone "needlessly" using crypto to hide their innocous emails simply helps The Bad Guys to blend in even more effectively). If you don't believe there could be a 'needless' reason to hide emails from any possible government collection, or that there's no such thing as Bad Guys (or both) then you would probably conclude we don't actually live in that bizarro universe. But not everyone would come to the same answers for both and they have logical reasons too.
- malandrew 13y ago
  "The government does seem to be saying that if you're only concerned about the government possibly seeing your stuff, that you don't have anything to worry about (as long as you're not recruiting for AQ or something) as the NSA doesn't have time to care about you anyways, but that's not quite the same concept. The problem with that statement is that it is patently untrue. Both Laura Poitras and Jacob Appelbaum are shining examples of people who don't fit the description of those they are authorized to target that have been targeted anyway. In fact, I would love to see how the NSA has been using the tools at their disposal since this story broke over two months ago. It would shock me if resources had not already been diverted from "find the terrorists" to "monitor and control American public discontent with our surveillance practices because the attitude of the American people present an existential threat to us." IMHO not one penny of tax payer money should ever be spent on any public relations activity at any level of government. I pay taxes for the government to provide me with services which I deem valuable. I do not pay taxes to pay for the labor that will defend how they spend my tax dollars. The problem with permitting any government agency to spend our tax dollars on such activities was succinctly summarized by Clay Shirky, "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution."

by aray 13y ago

It would be great to break through the "if you have nothing to hide" line and push that responsible citizenry need security (and cryptography) as well. I am also the other.

malandrew 13y ago

I think Martin Fowler has written one of the better arguments that appeal to the "I have nothing to hide" crowd, in "Privacy protects bothersome people"[0]. It's worth sharing with anyone who thinks that just because they have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean that they are not beneficiaries of those that do have something to hide. Privacy is one of the few things that protect those that protect us from the transgressions of our government. [0] http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html

Symmetry 13y ago
I actually think the biggest danger is the NSA digging up dirt on politicians a la J. Edgar Hoover. If details of my sex life were made public I'd be embarrassed but my employer wouldn't care and my life would go on. For a politician, though, scandal means losing your job.
- sseveran 13y ago
  Unless of course you can be made to look like a bad person and the twitterverse blows up.

mpyne 13y ago

> It would be great to break through the "if you have nothing to hide" line and push that responsible citizenry need security (and cryptography) as well. Who (of any relevance) on the NSA or DoJ side is saying people don't need crypto or security though? I've seen a Congressman use the 'nothing to hide' line but haven't seen it much elsewhere even among NSA's defenders. The government does seem to be saying that if you're only concerned about the government possibly seeing your stuff, that you don't have anything to worry about (as long as you're not recruiting for AQ or something) as the NSA doesn't have time to care about you anyways, but that's not quite the same concept. Plus even that has an adequate justification if we assume there is some bizarro universe where the NSA might actually only be doing their job (as everyone "needlessly" using crypto to hide their innocous emails simply helps The Bad Guys to blend in even more effectively). If you don't believe there could be a 'needless' reason to hide emails from any possible government collection, or that there's no such thing as Bad Guys (or both) then you would probably conclude we don't actually live in that bizarro universe. But not everyone would come to the same answers for both and they have logical reasons too.

malandrew 13y ago
"The government does seem to be saying that if you're only concerned about the government possibly seeing your stuff, that you don't have anything to worry about (as long as you're not recruiting for AQ or something) as the NSA doesn't have time to care about you anyways, but that's not quite the same concept. The problem with that statement is that it is patently untrue. Both Laura Poitras and Jacob Appelbaum are shining examples of people who don't fit the description of those they are authorized to target that have been targeted anyway. In fact, I would love to see how the NSA has been using the tools at their disposal since this story broke over two months ago. It would shock me if resources had not already been diverted from "find the terrorists" to "monitor and control American public discontent with our surveillance practices because the attitude of the American people present an existential threat to us." IMHO not one penny of tax payer money should ever be spent on any public relations activity at any level of government. I pay taxes for the government to provide me with services which I deem valuable. I do not pay taxes to pay for the labor that will defend how they spend my tax dollars. The problem with permitting any government agency to spend our tax dollars on such activities was succinctly summarized by Clay Shirky, "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution."