6 ms·

I linked my friends to his paper "I’ve Got Nothing To Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" [1] when I was closing down my Facebook and other social net

I linked my friends to his paper "I’ve Got Nothing To Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy" [1] when I was closing down my Facebook and other social network sites; it does a great job of explaining multiple aspects of privacy as well as show the absurdity of "Well if you have nothing to hide" [1] http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf

3rd3 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5899784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5899784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957864
SilasX 12y ago
I've noticed something strange: no one who recommends that article wants to put the core argument in their own words. Edit: never mind, I missed the second link, whose first comment has a good one (assuming it's faithful to the paper): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4958033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4958033
- mkal_tsr 12y ago
  Well, I've tried to make the argument several times, but I usually only hit several aspects of privacy. One of the reasons why I do recommend that paper is it (in my mind) sufficiently breaks down and refutes the 'nothing to hide' argument from multiple angles and exposes the fallacy for what it is, rather than resorting to emotional appeal like, "show me your email" I don't think it's strange at all, if you find something that you completely agree with and is articulated better than you could phrase it yourself, why go through the work of making the same argument with the same reasoning but in a poorer form?
  - SilasX 12y ago
    I don't claim to understand anything until I can put it in my own words. Even if you could only reveal something about the core argument, that would be 100x better than "go here to find an awesome argument". I'm pretty sure the core argument doesn't take several pages to simply express. (The abstract fails too in that it says basically "I'm gonna make an argument" instead of the actual argument.) One paragraph vs 50, times how many people? Naturally, a paragraph can't capture the full original, but it can tell people whether the point is worthy enough to justify reading the whole thing.
    - mkal_tsr 12y ago
      > I'm pretty sure the core argument doesn't take several pages to simply express. It doesn't, but to support it with evidence and examples, it does. That is what makes an argument/position robust and harder to discredit/disprove.
      - SilasX 12y ago
        You don't need to give all the evidence and examples to convey what the argument actually is. That's why it's a summary: you don't have to be as thorough as the original. Once someone knows what the argument is, they can decide whether it's something they've heard before, or already agree with, or want to know this or that point is supported. You don't get that from "he rips apart that argument, trust me".
        mkal_tsr 12y ago
        Well, this discussion is just not going to go anywhere since you're ignoring the context of it. It was me linking to my friends in my sign-off post on social network accounts and I was informing friends that if they wanted a summary of what I thought without having to contact me or listen to me rant for 30+ minutes, they could read a paper I agreed with or talk to me directly. Have a good day :-)
        SilasX 12y ago
        You make your friends go through 30 pages to learn of an idea they could get from a paragraph?
        mkal_tsr 12y ago
        Have a good day :-)
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      > I don't claim to understand anything until I can put it in my own words. Are you implying that the previous poster does not understand the issue if they chose not to state it in their own words? If not, this sentence seems out of place.
- tanglisha 12y ago
  Depending on the person I'm talking to, I have two approaches. 1. Do you trust the government that will be in place 20 years from now? Most of those people are now teenagers. 2. We don't know what law changes may happen in the future. The data gathered can make you look like someone who will break one of those laws. Ex post facto (protection for someone who broke a law before it was in effect) has been overturned by the Supreme Court in specific cases in the past.

3rd3 12y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5899784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5899784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957864

SilasX 12y ago

I've noticed something strange: no one who recommends that article wants to put the core argument in their own words. Edit: never mind, I missed the second link, whose first comment has a good one (assuming it's faithful to the paper): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4958033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4958033

mkal_tsr 12y ago
Well, I've tried to make the argument several times, but I usually only hit several aspects of privacy. One of the reasons why I do recommend that paper is it (in my mind) sufficiently breaks down and refutes the 'nothing to hide' argument from multiple angles and exposes the fallacy for what it is, rather than resorting to emotional appeal like, "show me your email" I don't think it's strange at all, if you find something that you completely agree with and is articulated better than you could phrase it yourself, why go through the work of making the same argument with the same reasoning but in a poorer form?
- SilasX 12y ago
  I don't claim to understand anything until I can put it in my own words. Even if you could only reveal something about the core argument, that would be 100x better than "go here to find an awesome argument". I'm pretty sure the core argument doesn't take several pages to simply express. (The abstract fails too in that it says basically "I'm gonna make an argument" instead of the actual argument.) One paragraph vs 50, times how many people? Naturally, a paragraph can't capture the full original, but it can tell people whether the point is worthy enough to justify reading the whole thing.
  - mkal_tsr 12y ago
    > I'm pretty sure the core argument doesn't take several pages to simply express. It doesn't, but to support it with evidence and examples, it does. That is what makes an argument/position robust and harder to discredit/disprove.
    - SilasX 12y ago
      You don't need to give all the evidence and examples to convey what the argument actually is. That's why it's a summary: you don't have to be as thorough as the original. Once someone knows what the argument is, they can decide whether it's something they've heard before, or already agree with, or want to know this or that point is supported. You don't get that from "he rips apart that argument, trust me".
      - mkal_tsr 12y ago
        Well, this discussion is just not going to go anywhere since you're ignoring the context of it. It was me linking to my friends in my sign-off post on social network accounts and I was informing friends that if they wanted a summary of what I thought without having to contact me or listen to me rant for 30+ minutes, they could read a paper I agreed with or talk to me directly. Have a good day :-)
        SilasX 12y ago
        You make your friends go through 30 pages to learn of an idea they could get from a paragraph?
        mkal_tsr 12y ago
        Have a good day :-)
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    > I don't claim to understand anything until I can put it in my own words. Are you implying that the previous poster does not understand the issue if they chose not to state it in their own words? If not, this sentence seems out of place.
tanglisha 12y ago
Depending on the person I'm talking to, I have two approaches. 1. Do you trust the government that will be in place 20 years from now? Most of those people are now teenagers. 2. We don't know what law changes may happen in the future. The data gathered can make you look like someone who will break one of those laws. Ex post facto (protection for someone who broke a law before it was in effect) has been overturned by the Supreme Court in specific cases in the past.