5 ms·

Perhaps you think your email is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't y

Perhaps you think your email is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut? Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their email? What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If a nonconformist tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their email, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their email privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity. I'm seriously thinking of having this printed up on business cards (1st paragraph on the front, 2nd on the back) so I can just whip them out and hand them to people. By the time they've gotten done saying, "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." it'll be in their hands.

swinnipeg 13y ago
My go to is something along the lines of: You disapprove of mandatory cavity searches before air travel or entering a school? Sounds you are a drug dealer.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  I've found that this doesn't work quite as well because modesty (the desire not to be seen 'naked') tangles up with privacy and creates a "that's different..." that seems difficult to quickly dismiss.
- jsaxton86 13y ago
  I don't think you understand why people approve of what the NSA is doing, which is why that's usually going to be an ineffective argument. The NSA promises a safer country, and all we have to is let them do a little bit of surveillance behind the scenes. We won't even notice -- it's not intrusive in the same way that a cavity search is. An NSA supporter once asked me if I would have given up the metadata on my phone if it would have prevented 9/11 and saved ~3000 lives. I wouldn't, for reasons that have been discussed on HN repeatedly, but I think it's still a fair question. The real issue here is the power imbalance combined with the lack of oversight and accountability. When I talk to NSA supporters, that's what I try to emphasize.
  - dasil003 13y ago
    > An NSA supporter once asked me if I would have given up the metadata on my phone if it would have prevented 9/11 and saved ~3000 lives. I wouldn't, for reasons that have been discussed on HN repeatedly, but I think it's still a fair question. Did someone seriously say that to you? Did you rebut with "would you give $1 to end poverty globally?"
    - dylandrop 13y ago
      To play devil's advocate, if everyone in the U.S. gave $1 to a fund to help the world's poor, that'd be $314 million in aid. Nothing to scoff at, even though it wouldn't end global poverty. But in any case, I'm not sure if your example is analogous, because $1 from a person is incrementally helpful, whereas having that person's phone data is almost certainly not. This brings me back to the grandparent poster's anecdote -- I don't think that the NSA would have been able to stop 9/11 just by sorting through everyone's texting and phone calls. It just seems infeasible to really deal with all of that information unless the attackers were very obvious through their conversations -- correct me if I'm wrong.
    - dhimes 13y ago
      The real issue is close to this. The real issue is that when the organization is empowered it's up to an individual to say "no" to improper surveillance. That's what's wrong with the "well there are good people behind it and we are all on the same team" argument. When it becomes your job to prevent an attack, and you have the authority to spy more than you think is morally correct, do you spy anyway? Or are you willing to let 3000 people die, and face the music of the world knowing that you could have prevented it but chose not to for altruistic reasons. That's why the laws must change: to protect the people who want to do the right thing.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    They had more than they needed to know to prevent 9/11. They didn't connect the dots. How would one more dot have helped?
    - 13y ago
anotheraccount7 13y ago
I think the postcards example hurts his argument. People send postcards all the time precisely because for the most part they don't care about privacy in their mail. In my personal life I can't think of a single example where I sent mail that I wanted to keep private (outside of maybe mail that had my SS#). I think most people are rather indifferent. "If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut" The main function of the envelope is to tied a bunch of papers together so they don't get separated in the mail.
- daveid 13y ago
  I think there's a misunderstanding. The author doesn't mean actual postcards – like holiday greetings and the like – those are actually sent in the public and nobody cares. The author means sending letters without envelopes.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- noonespecial 13y ago
  So it would be OK if your bank statements came rubberbanded together (or in transparent plastic "patriot envelopes") with your balances showing (for your convenience)? How about credit card statements showing what you owe? The results of that HIV test maybe?
  - anotheraccount7 13y ago
    That doesn't bother me at all. Other than your medical information, I'm pretty sure the government already knows all that information. And I'm not really sure how them knowing my HIV status leave me at a disadvantage.
    - Shivetya 13y ago
      Well they are currently fixing that part about not knowing your medical information. People are far too willing to give up their privacy if they can save a buck

swinnipeg 13y ago

My go to is something along the lines of: You disapprove of mandatory cavity searches before air travel or entering a school? Sounds you are a drug dealer.

noonespecial 13y ago
I've found that this doesn't work quite as well because modesty (the desire not to be seen 'naked') tangles up with privacy and creates a "that's different..." that seems difficult to quickly dismiss.
jsaxton86 13y ago
I don't think you understand why people approve of what the NSA is doing, which is why that's usually going to be an ineffective argument. The NSA promises a safer country, and all we have to is let them do a little bit of surveillance behind the scenes. We won't even notice -- it's not intrusive in the same way that a cavity search is. An NSA supporter once asked me if I would have given up the metadata on my phone if it would have prevented 9/11 and saved ~3000 lives. I wouldn't, for reasons that have been discussed on HN repeatedly, but I think it's still a fair question. The real issue here is the power imbalance combined with the lack of oversight and accountability. When I talk to NSA supporters, that's what I try to emphasize.
- dasil003 13y ago
  > An NSA supporter once asked me if I would have given up the metadata on my phone if it would have prevented 9/11 and saved ~3000 lives. I wouldn't, for reasons that have been discussed on HN repeatedly, but I think it's still a fair question. Did someone seriously say that to you? Did you rebut with "would you give $1 to end poverty globally?"
  - dylandrop 13y ago
    To play devil's advocate, if everyone in the U.S. gave $1 to a fund to help the world's poor, that'd be $314 million in aid. Nothing to scoff at, even though it wouldn't end global poverty. But in any case, I'm not sure if your example is analogous, because $1 from a person is incrementally helpful, whereas having that person's phone data is almost certainly not. This brings me back to the grandparent poster's anecdote -- I don't think that the NSA would have been able to stop 9/11 just by sorting through everyone's texting and phone calls. It just seems infeasible to really deal with all of that information unless the attackers were very obvious through their conversations -- correct me if I'm wrong.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    The real issue is close to this. The real issue is that when the organization is empowered it's up to an individual to say "no" to improper surveillance. That's what's wrong with the "well there are good people behind it and we are all on the same team" argument. When it becomes your job to prevent an attack, and you have the authority to spy more than you think is morally correct, do you spy anyway? Or are you willing to let 3000 people die, and face the music of the world knowing that you could have prevented it but chose not to for altruistic reasons. That's why the laws must change: to protect the people who want to do the right thing.
- ams6110 13y ago
  They had more than they needed to know to prevent 9/11. They didn't connect the dots. How would one more dot have helped?
  - 13y ago

anotheraccount7 13y ago

I think the postcards example hurts his argument. People send postcards all the time precisely because for the most part they don't care about privacy in their mail. In my personal life I can't think of a single example where I sent mail that I wanted to keep private (outside of maybe mail that had my SS#). I think most people are rather indifferent. "If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut" The main function of the envelope is to tied a bunch of papers together so they don't get separated in the mail.

daveid 13y ago
I think there's a misunderstanding. The author doesn't mean actual postcards – like holiday greetings and the like – those are actually sent in the public and nobody cares. The author means sending letters without envelopes.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
noonespecial 13y ago
So it would be OK if your bank statements came rubberbanded together (or in transparent plastic "patriot envelopes") with your balances showing (for your convenience)? How about credit card statements showing what you owe? The results of that HIV test maybe?
- anotheraccount7 13y ago
  That doesn't bother me at all. Other than your medical information, I'm pretty sure the government already knows all that information. And I'm not really sure how them knowing my HIV status leave me at a disadvantage.
  - Shivetya 13y ago
    Well they are currently fixing that part about not knowing your medical information. People are far too willing to give up their privacy if they can save a buck