5 ms·

I won't be getting rid of Dropbox, Google services, or Facebook anytime soon. I disagree with government spying, and would like to see major reform, but (disagr

by film42 12y ago

I won't be getting rid of Dropbox, Google services, or Facebook anytime soon. I disagree with government spying, and would like to see major reform, but (disagreeing with Snowden) I actually have nothing to hide. I'm not excusing the companies that provide data to governments, but I like the services they provide. They solve problems I want solved, so I will continue to use them. Edit: Why all the down votes? If you disagree, let's talk about it.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- film42 12y ago
  I firmly agree with you, these services can seem scary, and we're half way down that slippery slope. But it's hard for myself (the consumer) to leave a service (like dropbox) that makes my life easier. I can manage my own private dropbox like service, but I don't trust myself. Maybe that's even scarier.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    So, I get what you're saying. I have no intention of abandoning Google either. In fact, I still see Google as the good guys as odd as that might be to many people. In the short term I understand what Edward is saying, but I'm about the long-term game. Doesn't matter what trendy tech company has your data. Yesterday it was Yahoo & Myspace. Today it's Google & Facebook, tomorrow who knows... but the one constant in all of this is a corrupt government. I'm only interested in fixing government and fixing(or destroying) the NSA. Avoiding the victims(Google,Facebook,Apple,etc) of bad laws I don't think solves things in the long term. But, if you're an activist planning a revolution or becoming another whistle-blower in the near future... then by all means do what Edward says so you can at least attempt your plan and not get preemptively stopped.
  - takeitawaymike 12y ago
    "But it's hard for myself (the consumer) to leave a service (like dropbox) that makes my life easier." That's nonsensical and a strawman. No one is telling you to stop using such services. Just use an alternative that respects your rights. That's all there is to it.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - smtddr 12y ago
      Go ahead and list those alternatives for me. Please make sure they're immune to the power of USgov & NSA. Below is my list of tech companies that are immune to the USgov/NSA: ____
      - teacup50 12y ago
        Tech companies can't give up what they've never had, and tech companies choose whether or not they'll store user data centrally. Here's one for your list: http://syncthing.net/ http://syncthing.net/
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        smtddr 12y ago
        >>tech companies choose whether or not they'll store user data centrally ...until the USgov/NSA chooses for them. Also, while it's all great the Syncthing tool is open source I see that they have precompiled binaries. Now I ask you, what percentage of people will compile themselves instead of downloading the readily available binary? Especially Windows users? In short, syncthing isn't immune to the USgov/NSA. We're talking about the general public; not just hardcore techies who can download & compile source code. I can just get GPG & rsync if I wanted... but that's not the point. Me and the person I replied were talking about "services"(tech companies), not stand-alone tools. Anyways, Syncthing doesn't even replace Dropbox. Syncing files is just one of Dropbox's several features. And without a 3rd-party central server, Syncthing won't be able to deal with the person who wants their work computer to sync with their home computer. That central server is how you get around corporate firewalls, NAT and port-forwarding. If there's another way to deal with this, I'd love to hear it.
1971genocide 12y ago
"If you have nothing to hide share your credit card info and social security number with the world"
throwawayaway 12y ago
put a webcam in your bedroom, it will be just as revealing.
colechristensen 12y ago
Even if you have nothing to hide, the ability to control that much information about you is a great power over you. The abuse of you personally might not be happening now, but the potential is certainly there. What happens when the abuse of that power comes to you? (abuse of that power is already happening) I would very much rather have my own email server running local software to read that email and have something like a social network served much like email or through user-owned micro-servers. But software like that doesn't exist in high quality because it needs to be free and you can't get venture capital to make free things (and can't make money off non-cloud free services)
adventured 12y ago
You don't get to determine whether you have something to hide or not. That's not up to you. It's up to whomever is targeting you to decide whether they want to turn something you consider irrelevant, into something that puts you in prison. For example, something not considered a crime today, such as having this conversation, can be a 'thought crime' tomorrow. Oh, I see here film42, that back in 2014, you partook in a conversation that was negative of the regime's glorious goals. Guilty by association. 40 years hard labor.
- film42 12y ago
  I agree with your principle, but I'm confident that I don't need to worry about a hard labor sentencing regime.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Hopefully not. All you need to worry about is being put on a terrorist watch list and black listed from being able to fly anywhere in North America easily. Either way, the correct answer to "I have nothing to hide" is: you are not in control, and do not get to decide whether you have something to hide or not. You have no power over that matter. Once you understand that to be a indisputable fact - no matter what country you're in (as a citizen is never the one making that call) - then you'll stop saying that phrase, as it is equivalent to saying: "I am in charge of the FBI"
  - dahart 12y ago
    How about a more mundane example? A friend who worked for an analytics agency once told me that insurance companies are very interested in having access to the purchasing histories of their subscribers. We speculated why, and among several possibilities, we figured the most likely and obvious is this: what happens when you get cancer or have a heart attack at 72 and your insurance company denies all your medical claims citing the entire volume of ice cream, pork, beer, coffee and diet coke you've consumed in your life? Or cite all your family and friends that smoke, even though you don't? I make what I think are quite responsible choices with my health, but that conversation has stuck with me as an example of how information about me, information I'm not trying to 'hide', information that I didn't consider especially 'private', might be used against me at some point in the future.
staz 12y ago
The downvotes are probably because "The nothing to hide" line is such a tired argument. Do you have blinds on your windows? Do you mind if we place a camera in your bathroom? Why? You have nothing to hide.
- film42 12y ago
  I see your point, but I was addressing the Snowden quote from the article where he said, "When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’" Also, I really don't like that counter argument. I think it's supposed to instill fear. Everyone has a blindless-window on the internet. Like, what happens when you google: "<username> freenode"?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I think there is a subtle distinction between the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear; ergo privacy invasion is good" meme, and what was said above ("privacy invasion is bad, but I am not concerned with invasion if my privacy because I have nothing to hide"). Which is not to say there's nothing to object to in the latter.
pXMzR2A 12y ago
> I actually have nothing to hide. FTFA > When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’ The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights. Read TFA
- film42 12y ago
  Right, this was me disagreeing with that quote from the article. I understand you think differently, thank you for sharing.
TrevorJ 12y ago
The issue is that the public discourse over this topic conflates the human need for privacy with the argument of "I have nothing to hide". These two things are not the same thing. Whether or not you have something to hide has no bearing on our basic need or basic right to privacy. Additionally, no one can really say "I have nothing to hide" and be intellectually honest. The honest statement is "I have nothing to hide yet, that I know of." Why? Two reasons: number one, we live in an environment of selective enforcement. We all, knowingly or not run afoul of the law every day be it copyright law or something else. The corpus of legal code we exist under in this country is far to large for anyone to say with confidence that they have 'nothing to hide'. Secondly: While it may be true that you have nothing to hide right now, how can you know what options, behaviors, or possessions might run afoul of future administrations? History is replete with examples of regimes cleaning house when they come into power, and the digital paper trial we leave makes that all too easy. I'm sure you can counter that argument by saying that could never happen here in the US, but there are plenty of less severe areas where it would be easy to see this happening. What if the federal gov. changes its mind on looking the other way when states legalize a controlled substance and your digital paper trial makes it clear that you may have partaken in the past? There are any number of scenarios where activities and opinions that you deem to be perfectly acceptable now are things you may desire to keep private in the future. The point is, to say you have nothing to hide presumes you can predict the future, and have complete knowledge of the law, which no one person can reasonably posses. We have a system of warrants for a reason, and it is to protect you, as a citizen from these sorts of situations. Do not be so quick to give that up.
- karmacondon 12y ago
  "The wicked man flees when no one pursues." If everyone was constantly breaking the law then there would be no known criminals who haven't been arrested. There would no John Gottis or Whitey Bulgers. As soon as the government wanted someone arrested, they would just immediately arrest them for breaking copyright law or whatever. No need for the FBI to meticulously build cases, we're all guilty all the time and our only hope is to boycott Dropbox. And if the government suddenly decides to start enforcing ex post facto violations of the law, we're all screwed anyway. There's no point in living your life by being afraid of what might be in and out of fashion in the future. If the government decides to start arresting people who have broken existing laws (not to mention future ones) there there are literally millions of people who have openly admitted to doing drugs or otherwise violating existing prohibitions. I can't think of many cases where the average citizen was prosecuted because they admitted to a minor crime on facebook, not to mention any cases where the government changed their minds on the law and started going after people. I live a normal, boring life and do normal, boring things. I'm not going to get arrested for eating fast food while watching reality tv, or drinking beer and watching sports. I don't do anything that harms (or helps) anyone else, I'm the average American. I have nothing to hide and absolutely no fear of government intelligence collection.
AJ007 12y ago
When a nude man living in a glass house tells me he has nothing to hide, I will believe him.

by film42 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

film42 12y ago
I firmly agree with you, these services can seem scary, and we're half way down that slippery slope. But it's hard for myself (the consumer) to leave a service (like dropbox) that makes my life easier. I can manage my own private dropbox like service, but I don't trust myself. Maybe that's even scarier.
- smtddr 12y ago
  So, I get what you're saying. I have no intention of abandoning Google either. In fact, I still see Google as the good guys as odd as that might be to many people. In the short term I understand what Edward is saying, but I'm about the long-term game. Doesn't matter what trendy tech company has your data. Yesterday it was Yahoo & Myspace. Today it's Google & Facebook, tomorrow who knows... but the one constant in all of this is a corrupt government. I'm only interested in fixing government and fixing(or destroying) the NSA. Avoiding the victims(Google,Facebook,Apple,etc) of bad laws I don't think solves things in the long term. But, if you're an activist planning a revolution or becoming another whistle-blower in the near future... then by all means do what Edward says so you can at least attempt your plan and not get preemptively stopped.
- takeitawaymike 12y ago
  "But it's hard for myself (the consumer) to leave a service (like dropbox) that makes my life easier." That's nonsensical and a strawman. No one is telling you to stop using such services. Just use an alternative that respects your rights. That's all there is to it.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - smtddr 12y ago
    Go ahead and list those alternatives for me. Please make sure they're immune to the power of USgov & NSA. Below is my list of tech companies that are immune to the USgov/NSA: ____
    - teacup50 12y ago
      Tech companies can't give up what they've never had, and tech companies choose whether or not they'll store user data centrally. Here's one for your list: http://syncthing.net/ http://syncthing.net/
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - smtddr 12y ago
        >>tech companies choose whether or not they'll store user data centrally ...until the USgov/NSA chooses for them. Also, while it's all great the Syncthing tool is open source I see that they have precompiled binaries. Now I ask you, what percentage of people will compile themselves instead of downloading the readily available binary? Especially Windows users? In short, syncthing isn't immune to the USgov/NSA. We're talking about the general public; not just hardcore techies who can download & compile source code. I can just get GPG & rsync if I wanted... but that's not the point. Me and the person I replied were talking about "services"(tech companies), not stand-alone tools. Anyways, Syncthing doesn't even replace Dropbox. Syncing files is just one of Dropbox's several features. And without a 3rd-party central server, Syncthing won't be able to deal with the person who wants their work computer to sync with their home computer. That central server is how you get around corporate firewalls, NAT and port-forwarding. If there's another way to deal with this, I'd love to hear it.

1971genocide 12y ago

"If you have nothing to hide share your credit card info and social security number with the world"

throwawayaway 12y ago

put a webcam in your bedroom, it will be just as revealing.

colechristensen 12y ago

Even if you have nothing to hide, the ability to control that much information about you is a great power over you. The abuse of you personally might not be happening now, but the potential is certainly there. What happens when the abuse of that power comes to you? (abuse of that power is already happening) I would very much rather have my own email server running local software to read that email and have something like a social network served much like email or through user-owned micro-servers. But software like that doesn't exist in high quality because it needs to be free and you can't get venture capital to make free things (and can't make money off non-cloud free services)

adventured 12y ago

You don't get to determine whether you have something to hide or not. That's not up to you. It's up to whomever is targeting you to decide whether they want to turn something you consider irrelevant, into something that puts you in prison. For example, something not considered a crime today, such as having this conversation, can be a 'thought crime' tomorrow. Oh, I see here film42, that back in 2014, you partook in a conversation that was negative of the regime's glorious goals. Guilty by association. 40 years hard labor.

film42 12y ago
I agree with your principle, but I'm confident that I don't need to worry about a hard labor sentencing regime.
- adventured 12y ago
  Hopefully not. All you need to worry about is being put on a terrorist watch list and black listed from being able to fly anywhere in North America easily. Either way, the correct answer to "I have nothing to hide" is: you are not in control, and do not get to decide whether you have something to hide or not. You have no power over that matter. Once you understand that to be a indisputable fact - no matter what country you're in (as a citizen is never the one making that call) - then you'll stop saying that phrase, as it is equivalent to saying: "I am in charge of the FBI"
- dahart 12y ago
  How about a more mundane example? A friend who worked for an analytics agency once told me that insurance companies are very interested in having access to the purchasing histories of their subscribers. We speculated why, and among several possibilities, we figured the most likely and obvious is this: what happens when you get cancer or have a heart attack at 72 and your insurance company denies all your medical claims citing the entire volume of ice cream, pork, beer, coffee and diet coke you've consumed in your life? Or cite all your family and friends that smoke, even though you don't? I make what I think are quite responsible choices with my health, but that conversation has stuck with me as an example of how information about me, information I'm not trying to 'hide', information that I didn't consider especially 'private', might be used against me at some point in the future.

staz 12y ago

The downvotes are probably because "The nothing to hide" line is such a tired argument. Do you have blinds on your windows? Do you mind if we place a camera in your bathroom? Why? You have nothing to hide.

film42 12y ago
I see your point, but I was addressing the Snowden quote from the article where he said, "When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’" Also, I really don't like that counter argument. I think it's supposed to instill fear. Everyone has a blindless-window on the internet. Like, what happens when you google: "<username> freenode"?
dllthomas 12y ago
I think there is a subtle distinction between the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear; ergo privacy invasion is good" meme, and what was said above ("privacy invasion is bad, but I am not concerned with invasion if my privacy because I have nothing to hide"). Which is not to say there's nothing to object to in the latter.

pXMzR2A 12y ago

> I actually have nothing to hide. FTFA > When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’ The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights. Read TFA

film42 12y ago
Right, this was me disagreeing with that quote from the article. I understand you think differently, thank you for sharing.

TrevorJ 12y ago

The issue is that the public discourse over this topic conflates the human need for privacy with the argument of "I have nothing to hide". These two things are not the same thing. Whether or not you have something to hide has no bearing on our basic need or basic right to privacy. Additionally, no one can really say "I have nothing to hide" and be intellectually honest. The honest statement is "I have nothing to hide yet, that I know of." Why? Two reasons: number one, we live in an environment of selective enforcement. We all, knowingly or not run afoul of the law every day be it copyright law or something else. The corpus of legal code we exist under in this country is far to large for anyone to say with confidence that they have 'nothing to hide'. Secondly: While it may be true that you have nothing to hide right now, how can you know what options, behaviors, or possessions might run afoul of future administrations? History is replete with examples of regimes cleaning house when they come into power, and the digital paper trial we leave makes that all too easy. I'm sure you can counter that argument by saying that could never happen here in the US, but there are plenty of less severe areas where it would be easy to see this happening. What if the federal gov. changes its mind on looking the other way when states legalize a controlled substance and your digital paper trial makes it clear that you may have partaken in the past? There are any number of scenarios where activities and opinions that you deem to be perfectly acceptable now are things you may desire to keep private in the future. The point is, to say you have nothing to hide presumes you can predict the future, and have complete knowledge of the law, which no one person can reasonably posses. We have a system of warrants for a reason, and it is to protect you, as a citizen from these sorts of situations. Do not be so quick to give that up.

karmacondon 12y ago
"The wicked man flees when no one pursues." If everyone was constantly breaking the law then there would be no known criminals who haven't been arrested. There would no John Gottis or Whitey Bulgers. As soon as the government wanted someone arrested, they would just immediately arrest them for breaking copyright law or whatever. No need for the FBI to meticulously build cases, we're all guilty all the time and our only hope is to boycott Dropbox. And if the government suddenly decides to start enforcing ex post facto violations of the law, we're all screwed anyway. There's no point in living your life by being afraid of what might be in and out of fashion in the future. If the government decides to start arresting people who have broken existing laws (not to mention future ones) there there are literally millions of people who have openly admitted to doing drugs or otherwise violating existing prohibitions. I can't think of many cases where the average citizen was prosecuted because they admitted to a minor crime on facebook, not to mention any cases where the government changed their minds on the law and started going after people. I live a normal, boring life and do normal, boring things. I'm not going to get arrested for eating fast food while watching reality tv, or drinking beer and watching sports. I don't do anything that harms (or helps) anyone else, I'm the average American. I have nothing to hide and absolutely no fear of government intelligence collection.

AJ007 12y ago

When a nude man living in a glass house tells me he has nothing to hide, I will believe him.