4 ms·

> For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy. However, when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets much more atte

> For many people, safety has a higher political priority than privacy. However, when you start saying that mass surveillance kills jobs, it gets much more attention because economic issues are usually on par or above safety concerns. Then there are people like my wife, who thinks disclosure hurt the US politically and economically, thus rationalizing that it is Snowden's fault for revealing all these surveillance programs, not the NSA's for having them in the first place. I think that attitude, combined with "safety > privacy" and "I have nothing to hide" are very common amongst more politically-aware people. I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals. It's an assertion that all crime is permissible, if the perpetrator is not caught.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
So, if you, I dunno, cheated on her, and a friend who knew about it told her, then it would all be that friend's fault, right? People have weird ethics ...
- Herring 12y ago
  I think it has something to do with shame vs guilt cultures.
watwut 12y ago
"I have nothing to hide" is in this context synonymous with "I am not associated with wikileaks or any other know activist group able to anger the powerful" and "I am not journalist about to make government angry" and "I am not developing tor or some encryption tool" and "I am not defense layer in important case" and "I am not involved with occupy wall street" and so on. The spying on commission investigating NSA was already revealed. "Nothing to hide" theory presumes NSA did it just for fun and had nothing to gain. I have nothing to hide too. However, that is because I am not politically significant. The privacy and protection against agencies are not that needed for random Joe, however random Joe still benefits from fair democratic process even if he chosen not to be active. They are needed for politically active people not currently in power. Or, imagine something like Petraeus scandal. Ability to see someones mails and ability whose browsing habits are about to become public knowledge is huge. Ability to see opposition or activists or defense lawyer plans can make huge difference even if they are not involved in anything illegal or unethical.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
HSO 12y ago
> I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals. You could make a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" argument based on analogy: A reveals B to be the rapist of C, hence A is to blame for the punishment that befalls B?! Or, closer to reality (sadly), C gets accused of smearing the precious reputation of B by saying something. PS: As for the "nothing to hide" fallacy, as if everyone who is concerned had "something to hide"! Perhaps you could remind her that even if she (thinks she) has nothing to hide, an orthogonal reason to care, perhaps the strongest, is that by resisting in whatever ways you can -- by changing your own behavior, for a start -- you contribute to the preservation of liberty.
quadrangle 12y ago
The non-tin-foil response is about check-your-privilege. You might happen to be lucky to be in the less vulnerable, less suspicious group today, but there are regular innocent folks who are targeted for all sorts of reasons. But blatantly, nearly every person who comes face-to-face with visceral awareness of loss of their privacy will care. If you have an actual peeping Tom looking in your windows, you care very much, even if you know they are from the NSA and not just some random creep. Real basic emotional awareness of loss of privacy completely changes how we behave and feel. All your wife is really saying is that it's all too abstract for her — she doesn't really feel like her privacy is lost.
smutticus 12y ago
When people close to me tell me they have nothing to hide I immediately bring up something embarrassing about them. Then ask them how they would feel if [colleague|student|boss] knew it. Once people directly realize what it means to have no privacy they generally get the concept. It's just in the abstract that people have a hard time understanding it. Bring it hometo her in a very personal way, because that's what it's about.
gabzuka 12y ago
I think the reason it hurt the US politically and economically is because the trust they shared with the rest of the world was damaged. Arguing that it should have been kept a secret to avoid it shows a very US-centric view of the world where you're thinking only about the well being of your country. As others said, it has a lot to do with your privilege.
eevilspock 12y ago
> "I have nothing to hide" are very common amongst more politically-aware people Do you mean politically-UN-aware? Take your pick: - Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide': http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127... - 3 Reasons the ‘Nothing to Hide’ Crowd Should Be Worried About Government Surveillance: http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-noth... - Privacy And Why It Really Matters (skip down to "The cost of losing privacy": https://markopolojarvi.com/privacy.html https://markopolojarvi.com/privacy.html - Nothing to hide argument (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument - "I’ve Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (PDF): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 . > "safety > privacy" Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide. Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. - above two quotes of Bruce Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_t... - Sir Tim Berners-Lee Blasts “Insidious, Chilling Effects” Of Online Surveillance, Says We Should Be Protecting Whistleblowers Like Snowden: http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/sir-tim-berners-lee-blasts-insidious-chilling-effects-of-online-surveillance-says-we-should-be-protecting-whistleblowers-like-snowden/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/sir-tim-berners-lee-blasts-... - chilling effects already in evidence: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2412564 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2412564
- canvia 12y ago
  Good links, one more: http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-t...
ameister14 12y ago
Personally, I use the argument that it's not about what's illegal or unacceptable now, it's about the future. In the 1920's, nobody thought hanging out with a couple of communists in college one time would come back to bite them. It's unreasonable to think that it would. But it did. So it's not that what you're doing is wrong, or that you have something to hide. It's that someday, something you do today could come back on you. Better it be something that you choose to share than something the government discovers and keeps records of.
tomjen3 12y ago
Ask her why she wears clothing if she has nothing to hide.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals. It's an assertion that all crime is permissible, if the perpetrator is not caught.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago

So, if you, I dunno, cheated on her, and a friend who knew about it told her, then it would all be that friend's fault, right? People have weird ethics ...

Herring 12y ago
I think it has something to do with shame vs guilt cultures.

watwut 12y ago

"I have nothing to hide" is in this context synonymous with "I am not associated with wikileaks or any other know activist group able to anger the powerful" and "I am not journalist about to make government angry" and "I am not developing tor or some encryption tool" and "I am not defense layer in important case" and "I am not involved with occupy wall street" and so on. The spying on commission investigating NSA was already revealed. "Nothing to hide" theory presumes NSA did it just for fun and had nothing to gain. I have nothing to hide too. However, that is because I am not politically significant. The privacy and protection against agencies are not that needed for random Joe, however random Joe still benefits from fair democratic process even if he chosen not to be active. They are needed for politically active people not currently in power. Or, imagine something like Petraeus scandal. Ability to see someones mails and ability whose browsing habits are about to become public knowledge is huge. Ability to see opposition or activists or defense lawyer plans can make huge difference even if they are not involved in anything illegal or unethical.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

HSO 12y ago

> I, unfortunately, can't come up with many good, non-tinfoil rebuttals. You could make a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" argument based on analogy: A reveals B to be the rapist of C, hence A is to blame for the punishment that befalls B?! Or, closer to reality (sadly), C gets accused of smearing the precious reputation of B by saying something. PS: As for the "nothing to hide" fallacy, as if everyone who is concerned had "something to hide"! Perhaps you could remind her that even if she (thinks she) has nothing to hide, an orthogonal reason to care, perhaps the strongest, is that by resisting in whatever ways you can -- by changing your own behavior, for a start -- you contribute to the preservation of liberty.

quadrangle 12y ago

The non-tin-foil response is about check-your-privilege. You might happen to be lucky to be in the less vulnerable, less suspicious group today, but there are regular innocent folks who are targeted for all sorts of reasons. But blatantly, nearly every person who comes face-to-face with visceral awareness of loss of their privacy will care. If you have an actual peeping Tom looking in your windows, you care very much, even if you know they are from the NSA and not just some random creep. Real basic emotional awareness of loss of privacy completely changes how we behave and feel. All your wife is really saying is that it's all too abstract for her — she doesn't really feel like her privacy is lost.

smutticus 12y ago

When people close to me tell me they have nothing to hide I immediately bring up something embarrassing about them. Then ask them how they would feel if [colleague|student|boss] knew it. Once people directly realize what it means to have no privacy they generally get the concept. It's just in the abstract that people have a hard time understanding it. Bring it hometo her in a very personal way, because that's what it's about.

gabzuka 12y ago

I think the reason it hurt the US politically and economically is because the trust they shared with the rest of the world was damaged. Arguing that it should have been kept a secret to avoid it shows a very US-centric view of the world where you're thinking only about the well being of your country. As others said, it has a lot to do with your privilege.

eevilspock 12y ago

> "I have nothing to hide" are very common amongst more politically-aware people Do you mean politically-UN-aware? Take your pick: - Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide': http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127... - 3 Reasons the ‘Nothing to Hide’ Crowd Should Be Worried About Government Surveillance: http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-noth... - Privacy And Why It Really Matters (skip down to "The cost of losing privacy": https://markopolojarvi.com/privacy.html https://markopolojarvi.com/privacy.html - Nothing to hide argument (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument - "I’ve Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (PDF): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 . > "safety > privacy" Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide. Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. - above two quotes of Bruce Schneier: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_t... - Sir Tim Berners-Lee Blasts “Insidious, Chilling Effects” Of Online Surveillance, Says We Should Be Protecting Whistleblowers Like Snowden: http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/sir-tim-berners-lee-blasts-insidious-chilling-effects-of-online-surveillance-says-we-should-be-protecting-whistleblowers-like-snowden/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/sir-tim-berners-lee-blasts-... - chilling effects already in evidence: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2412564 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2412564

canvia 12y ago
Good links, one more: http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/ http://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-t...

ameister14 12y ago

Personally, I use the argument that it's not about what's illegal or unacceptable now, it's about the future. In the 1920's, nobody thought hanging out with a couple of communists in college one time would come back to bite them. It's unreasonable to think that it would. But it did. So it's not that what you're doing is wrong, or that you have something to hide. It's that someday, something you do today could come back on you. Better it be something that you choose to share than something the government discovers and keeps records of.

tomjen3 12y ago

Ask her why she wears clothing if she has nothing to hide.