20 ms·

Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have 'Nothing to Hide' (2011)

195 points by xmpir 12y ago

a3n 12y ago
Anything you say today, however innocent, is potential "evidence" against you by a later government. "Your Honor, the accursed is on record, and admits, that he regularly voted for the Repugnicratic party. Why, he even admits to giving them money!" Any personal fact collected and stored, however politically or criminally innocuous, is potentially retrievable by criminals breaching the storage system. It doesn't matter how pure of heart today's collectors may be; if it's not observed or collected today then it can't be abused tomorrow.
- explorigin 12y ago
  Case in point: Brenden Eich
- SaltyMaia 12y ago
  If there isn't anything inherently wrong with collecting, and future abuse is the only thing you are worried about, then you should probably worry about protecting against abuses, not collecting. Especially if you have no other point to be had for privacy, when the opposition claims unobjected that giving it up can and does save lives. That said, I think the criminal breach argument is a valid one but the one that really nails it is one already mentioned above: "privacy isn't something you can just give up. It's a right given to society by our framers, not individuals. A smoothly functioning democracy depends on dissent, which requires privacy to allow alternate points of view to gain traction. So privacy is a social good, not a personal right, and if we reduce privacy, we are reducing our democracy. The Soviets didn't have privacy. Free countries must." Sans the soviet part, in my opinion... Seems useless and even fallaciously counter-productive to mention it, I don't get why it's even there edit: What I mean by the first paragraph, in case it's not clear, is that most technologies can and probably will be abused, which doesn't go a long way to say that they should be forbidden right at the start, if there is good to be had in them. You just have to be careful not to allow abuses (which by your post I figured you don't think are happening at this moment)
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > What I mean by the first paragraph, in case it's not clear, is that most technologies can and probably will be abused, which doesn't go a long way to say that they should be forbidden right at the start, if there is good to be had in them. You just have to be careful not to allow abuses (which by your post I figured you don't think are happening at this moment) Collecting data isn't a technology, it's a use of a technology. And preventing mass data collection is how you disallow abuse. The vast majority of the productive use of e.g. location tracking data is possible when you have the data on yourself and nobody has mass data on everyone. The things that are only possible with bulk data collection are almost universally bad.
- LordKano 12y ago
  I remind everyone of Brendan Eich. He donated money to a popular political cause and a few years later, after the political winds have shifted, a leak about this lead to him being forced out of his job. A lot of people are alright with this because the find Eich's position to be repugnant. Maybe it was but that's not the point. They need to remember that sometimes, they're not going to agree with the herd and it well could be them on the chopping block. Ubiquitous surveillance will make future McCarthy-style witch hunts possible and arguably it even makes them likely.
lectrick 12y ago
Also see Martin Fowler's great essay "Privacy Protects Bothersome People": http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html If you look over the course of history, what was considered "blasphemous," "treason", "illegal" and the like has changed A LOT.
jnorthrop 12y ago
Privacy matters at this moment in time for few reasons. There is little risk to an individual's rights due to profiling based on available information (which is the result of no or limited privacy). That doesn't mean there is no risk, but for most of us the risk is negligible. However, in the not-so-distant future it will be a much bigger deal. As data about our personal lives becomes more accessible and prolific, especially with the growth of IoT devices, and we get better at those big data profiling techniques we will see wider uses of profiling beyond nation security and marketing purposes. It is not hard to imagine a future where universities profile potential students based on available data and eliminate those deemed unfit (without ever looking at an application). Or employers doing similar things. Or insurance companies basing rates on profiling information. Reasonable scenarios become easy to imagine with the end result that discrimination becomes commonplace. Discrimination for those that listen to a certain type of music, or use a certain type of grammar, or view certain websites. That is a dangerous future and we are heading down that path. We, as a society, need to figure out how to address this before it is a problem, and paramount to successfully thwarting that type of future is to ensure we maintain our privacy. That is why privacy matters.
- kindofanger 12y ago
  Profiling and tracking techniques will continue to develop in accordance with the demands of the market. Consumers will gleefully move toward more data collection. This will not be resolved via legislation, and in fact may underscore the historical fact that our "right to privacy" only mattered when we were insignificant. Give people the power of computers and they are now a threat that requires being targeted and monitored. If anything, legislation will continue to increase the costs of remaining private. They will continue to slice away at the onion of freedom, and so long as most people have neat apps and devices, this will be sufficient, at least for a while, and by then it will be too late. Privacy absolutely matters, but we cannot count on the beneficence of legislators and corporations to bestow it on us.
- mrfusion 12y ago
  So I realized you're describing GATTICA but based on private information instead of DNA.
natch 12y ago
This article misses a huge thing everyone does have to hide, and that is the private information they have about their own family and friends. My Facebook, my contacts list, my emails, my messages, my call history... all of these have private information about friends and family, and this private information should not be shared with others without the full consent of everyone involved.
- hawleyal 12y ago
  I think you're right, the author doesn't cover those collaterally affected by secret information. However, this is outside of the author's main point. The author is focusing on the principle privacy is not just about secret keeping things secret. Your example of people who may collaterally affected falls under this category. It's just an example of using the word private to equate secret.
- nthcolumn 12y ago
  I never viewed the internet as private. I hid my tracks not because I'd done anything wrong but because there are 'crazies out there', I have plenty to hide and why take a chance? Then 'wow' forums - I could say controversial things, play devil's advocate, really push the discussion farther than IRL with little fear of reprisal or even rebuke. Which was great for me because I'm the guy who parks the other way round in the car lot. I have always been a natural dissenter. Then my friends joined facebook - early days before it was humungous. It raided their contacts and my little cell was exposed. I had not used a separate email address for each person I had ever met. Silly me. Then Zuck said 'privacy is dead' and I remembered that even before that in college he had said 'I can't believe these idiots are trusting me with all this information' - or something like that I can't really recall - and I knew he was right. I wish it weren't so. We speak more guardedly now. Still get downvoted.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  ... and you've shared that information with Facebook, your e-mail provider and your phone provider. The question shouldn't be whether or not you have information to hide (everyone does), but what information are you hiding from who and why?
mkr-hn 12y ago
There's a building right down the street where they preached hatred for people like me not that long ago. I had something to hide (came out a year ago), and it was effectively a felony as recently as 2003. If the US ever plunges into theocracy, I'm as good as dead. I don't hide it since I live in a relatively liberal and progressive part of a socially conservative region. I'm a little concerned about backlash from a favorable SCOTUS ruling, but it's too late to go back. Maybe the Presbyterian church next door will send someone over to help them adjust.
- pstuart 12y ago
  > I'm as good as dead Some might take that as hyperbole, but I'm convinced that is indeed the case. I'm sure that if it was legal there's plenty of Good Christians who would be thrilled to hunt Liberal Atheists for sport. http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/27/believers-atheists-worse-rapists http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/27/believers-atheists-wor...
  - Jdoemk2 12y ago
    It is hyperbole. And I can't believe you really think "plenty" of people would want to hunt you because of your beliefs. Don't exaggerate. Demonising people you disagree with does not help at all. Sensasionalising these problems won't bring about progress.
    - GauntletWizard 12y ago
      I'm not so certain that public lynchings for homosexuality wouldn't occur. On the other hand, there's plenty of people on the other side of the fence who'd see conservatives jailed and beaten (They'd not sully their hands themselves, just require the increasingly large nanny-state to do it) for disagreeing with their concept of 'progress'. Maybe we just need to open the floodgates and let these factions kill each other off.
    - ctdonath 12y ago
      People are being pushed off buildings or beheaded precisely because of their beliefs. Today. Oh, sure, it's some war-torn region and done by extremists...but they weren't doing it more than a few months ago, and now the for-that-reason dead are numbering well into 5-6 digits and rising fast. It's real, it's growing, and there's many people who would "hunt you because of your beliefs" if not for the normalcy of rule & law.
Eleutheria 12y ago
When you fight evil, you hide your moves so they don't move first. Evil will try by all means not letting you hide your moves by asking you, telling you, imposing you there is nothing to hide. Now you know where evil exactly is, and you hide even more, you mutate, you dissapear from the eyes of evil. That's the only way you fight them.
cryoshon 12y ago
Well, the hardest pulling argument I have for privacy is the following: 1. The government claims it must violate everyone's privacy in order to look for a few individuals, planning terrorist act X. 2. Though I wasn't involved in X before, I now go out of my way to avoid appearing sympathetic to X or involved in Y, which, while different from X, is adjacent to X, and therefore suspect in the eyes of the government who are hunting X. By a broad and ridiculous interpretation of X, X and Y come to be equal in the eyes of the government. 3. Discussions of or relating to X and Y are squelched sans privacy for fear of backlash; Z is next on the chopping block because it is adjacent to Y. At the start of this chain of events, discussion of Z was probably not quite mainstream, but it was certainly not equated to X, which was never acceptable by anyone. Thus, the slide from X to Z is complete, and the fallout from whatever is after Z can begin. Dissent is treated like treason in the USA. Anyone with an opinion that differs from the government has their speech targeted by reductions in privacy, and their speech will likely be chilled the more the government pushes the dissent-as-terrorism angle that they've shown to be keen for. They've already pulled "journalism", "privacy", "aiding or abetting by making youtube videos", "protesting", "whistleblowing" and "terrorism" into the same perverted continuum.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  >Dissent is treated like treason in the USA. Hyperbole undermines your credibility. Also your arguments are to complicated.
  - nijiko 12y ago
    TL;DR It might be legal or scrutinized today, but tomorrow is not set in stone.
Retric 12y ago
Whenever I think of this topic I think of a simple comedy skit done as a commercial. EX: We at the all seeing eye believe in transparency. From our naked policy (Queue lots of fat and somewhat blurry people), our computers (no cases) or our bathrooms (no stalls), we have no problems with you watching us watch you. (All Seeing Eye logo.) PS: I can easily see a long list of really creapy skits in this vein. EX2: At work (Moving all seeing eye coffie mugs) at play (kids tossing an all seeing eye ball) in sickness (All seeing stethoscope) and in health (pool lined with all seeing eyes) we are watching you (queue logo).
- icebraining 12y ago
  Maybe it could use The Police's song as the background track. I'm still amazed at how many people fail to see how creepy the lyrics really are. Thankfully for my sanity, the author does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Breath_You_Take#Origins_and_songwriting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Breath_You_Take#Origins_a...
diafygi 12y ago
I've always liked using the social good argument from the same author's previous work[1]. "I don't mind giving up some privacy for safety. I've got nothing to hide." "Well privacy isn't something you can just give up. It's a right given to society by our framers, not individuals. A smoothly functioning democracy depends on dissent, which requires privacy to allow alternate points of view to gain traction. So privacy is a social good, not a personal right, and if we reduce privacy, we are reducing our democracy. The Soviets didn't have privacy. Free countries must." That last part is usually what does the trick. [1]: http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf
- fragsworth 12y ago
  I can speak from experience that the surveillance revealed by Snowden is already impacting the severity and tone of my political discussions with friends and colleagues. We are (mostly) pretty keenly aware of the fact that our conversations are going into a database somewhere, and will likely be processed by some algorithm later.
  - rl3 12y ago
    In my experience, it was almost the opposite. The Snowden revelations illustrated how imperfect the NSA's coverage actually was compared to our prior speculation, and that they had some semblance of decency with regards to handling data. Of course, I have my doubts that said decency holds at higher levels, and I'm sure it greatly depends on how important you are. So unless you're a legitimate surveillance target such as a terrorist, politician, investigative journalist, or EFF attorney, you likely have nothing to fear.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "I'm sure it greatly depends on how important you are." And who you've dated...
    - pizza234 12y ago
      The NSA is essentially unaccountable for whatever it does; there's no decency in this. I hope that the assumption that investigate journalists and EFF attorneys are "legitimate" targets is highly ironic.
Alex3917 12y ago
If you look at all the top privacy theorists, one of the standard arguments for privacy is that it protects minorities and other people whose opinions are currently unpopular for whatever reason. But if you look at a lot of the recent writing coming from the feminist movement, over the last year there have been a ton of folks arguing that privacy mainly protects men and those currently in power, and actually oppresses women and minorities. Not sure what's going on here, but it's certainly something worth keeping an eye on.
- gpcz 12y ago
  I did some searches for (all without the quotes) "privacy patriarchy", "privacy protects men", and "privacy feminism," but I mostly found old articles from the 80s and 90s about how Roe vs. Wade should not have been argued from a privacy standpoint and arguments about how drawing a line where family is "private life" can enable domestic violence and inequality due to the state being reluctant to interfere with people's private lives. Can you provide some examples from the last year of the trend you're describing?
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    > Can you provide some examples from the last year of the trend you're describing? I don't remember any specific articles, but they've mostly revolved around campus sexual assault and domestic violence. The Newsweek article from yesterday, What Silicon Valley Thinks of Women, was also complaining about a tech CEO who received a relatively lenient sentence for a domestic violence incident, which happened because the main evidence against him was thrown out due to being seized without a warrant. I'm not saying the author of the piece was definitely coming out against the 4th amendment in this instance, but that is more or less the general sentiment. edit: Here is one clear example: http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170 http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome... Also, here is a similar article on free speech. http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsafety-net-how-social-media-turned-against-women/381261/ http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsa... "Under the banner of free speech, companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been host to rape videos and revenge porn — which makes female users feel anything but free." I say similar because the right to free speech has also traditionally been seen as protecting the rights of minorities, whereas recently we've seen an uptick in folks claiming that free speech mostly protects those with power.
byjess 12y ago
I wish there was a gmail plugin that would make the users email publicly accessible, but read only. This would clearly test their "I have nothing to hide" argument.
- superobserver 12y ago
  That would be very amusing to see.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  This is a strawman or reduction to the absurd (I can't decide which) and it is throughly unhelpful to convincing anyone of anything - I'm getting rather tired of seeing it. There is a huge difference between refusing to have a lock on your front door and being okay with advertising to pay for a free service. There is also a huge difference between publicly broadcasting your email and only the government having access to it. Here's a hint: The NSA is not the general public. (This comment should absolutely not be construed as acceptance of spying)
totemizer 12y ago
privacy is a myth
spirit1988 12y ago
Nothing to hide? Hey, can you set a Gmail filter redirecting a copy of all your emails to my account? Do it, you have nothing to hide :) Or better, just use a public Twitter account for all your communications so we all can see what you are doing.
DontBeADick 12y ago
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
- 0942v8653 12y ago
  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed
rndn 12y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105485 Even more: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Privacy%20Matters%20even%20if%20you%20have&type=story&dateRange=all&prefix&page=0&sort=byPopularity https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Privacy%20Matters%20even...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Torgo 12y ago
"I have nothing to hide" really means "I don't care, stop talking to me about it".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cyphunk 12y ago
Then the government might start monitoring some phone calls. "It's just a few phone calls, nothing more." The government might install more video cameras in public places. "So what? Some more cameras watching in a few more places. No big deal." What I've learned from the privacy debate culture over the past years is that even amongst many privacy advocates the "So what?" mentality is prevalent. Their actions, not words, reveal this. While everyone rushes to use Threema, TextSecure, Telegram, OTR, GPG nearly no one bothers to check key fingerprints. That leads me to believe that the majority of people in this scene are using privacy technology as a means to simply feel better about themselves. To feel morally satisfied with themselves. It's not entirely dissimilar to the "support the troops" yellow ribbon, fight cancer "livestrong" wrist bands, or support the fight against AIDS red iPod. What we see is that people, even people that believe this is an important "fight", actually wind up with the same behavioural pattern of the "So what"'s. Both they and the "nothing to hide"'s reveal that this fight is actually not a fight at all but a window into the changing definitions of self and identity. Privacy is a deeper topic than government surveillance. I suppose the article attempted to get slightly past that but not far enough imho. The change of this social contract has little to do with the NSA scandal. The focus on government intrusion of privacy is actually a distraction from the more existentialist issue at hand. That being we have and are changing. The importance of secrecy is actually a great point from which to understand how the social contract of privacy is and will change. Philosopher George Simmel (born 1858) describes the importance of secrecy as: You are only an individual to the extent at which you are NOT transparent. (shout out to philosopher Alice Lagaay for her work on the topic) But Simmel, other dead philosophers, dead poets or dead "founding fathers", were products of their time. In retrospect it is clear that, with the latency created by the physicality of their world, they lived in a transparency surplus. For this reason I argue that the debate surrounding this social contract lay not in post-privacy but in the understanding of post-existentialism (a relook at existentialist thought from the understanding of the networked-self -- identity increasingly built on relationships and extroversion). The majority of people arguing "I have nothing to hide" aren't doing so because, as at one point this article argues, they feel the security value outweighs their concern for privacy. They are doing so because the networked self is creating very relevant non-security values to individuality. Something induced by the change from the physical self to self of the network. They are individuals that are focused on just living a better life, not some moralist agenda for a better life that used to be. If you hear "I have nothing to hide" and are inclined to enforce your moral understanding then you're missing the opportunity to understand these changes that are happening. If you do want to argue it, regardless, the best argument I've heard is from the Privacy Extremists: Because I value many things, therefor I hide many things http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/the-treasure-which-is-privacy/ http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/the-treasure-which-is-privacy/
jfoutz 12y ago
The thing that bugs me most is the asymmetry. I don't think the location of every person everywhere being public is really that scary. But that means lots of things. For one, the spouse fleeing from the abusive partner - scary situation, but full tracking enables actually enforcing "stay this far away" court orders. it's easier to rob banks when you know how long it will take for the police to get there, it's impossible to deny you were at the bank at the time. I realize it's risky to tell our enemies where our generals, senators and president are, but if the accessibility isn't total the information pretty much instantly becomes a tool for tyranny.
jwatte 12y ago
The only real solution is to build a culture where nobody (private our public) expects or gets privacy. There are lots of things people "would rather not share," that don't matter if we all know that people are people. Besides, for capitalism to work, we need rational actors with /perfect information/.
threatofrain 12y ago
Here's a potentially new argument to bring to the table, in addition to the usual: putting aside criminal or embarrassing issues, saying that you have nothing to hide is saying that your data is worth nothing. Someone might find connections about you that you didn't know, like the fact that you are more willing to pay higher prices for the same product when you and your partner are trying to have a baby (just saying hypothetically). I don't think that information should be free. At the very least, I'd want to charge. Someone might find out information about your children in indirect but legitimate ways. Perhaps your son is more likely to nag you to buy some product based on some controllable factor. I'd at least sell that kind of information for no less than $500. That's an iPad.
brandonmenc 12y ago
Few seem to be acknowledging the obvious: It's a bad thing that records will exist documenting the sexual proclivities of those with their fingers on the nuclear launch button. When senators, presidents, and generals can be blackmailed, we've got a problem. The largest levers of power will be moved by the most trivial information. The scenarios will range from invading countries to who gets that city building permit. All because someone is cheating on their spouse. It's not strictly "government officials versus us." Government officials will also be spied on. That, imo, is the real problem. Even people who have nothing to hide don't want to live in a world like that.
baumbart 12y ago
Nice article! One of the authors points was that people are not effected in their daily life through privacy problems (or at least that's what I read between the lines during that "dead bodies" metaphor). So here's my idea: I'll place a warning in my email signature, that people should take care what they write to me because my email account is spied on and everything is recorded. There are two points in this; first, it is quite accurate to reality, my (and everyone else's) email IS scanned for suspicious content for example. Second, it will shift the focus of people writing their text to this fact, that they are being monitored. This in turn should raise their awareness of the problem and put some effect on their life that they can easily perceive.
- syntern 12y ago
  Interesting suggestion. I hope you will share your experiences with it.
csours 12y ago
I've seen this article several times now, and every time it has been equally impenetrable. I think one of the major flaws is that this sentence appears in the 10th paragraph: "To evaluate the nothing-to-hide argument, we should begin by looking at how its adherents understand privacy" Why do we only begin to evaluate the argument in the 10th paragraph? This article has gravely serious implications, but it is needlessly long. I'm not from the TL;DR crowd, but this is TL;NC (Not Cogent)
aburan28 12y ago
I'm afraid that our political system is non-responsive to the mainstream opinion of the public. This privacy battle is unfortunately going to only change when something like all of Facebook's private messages end up on torrents
Tangokat 12y ago
I really like Moxie Marlinspike's Wired article on this [1]. Especially relevant to those of you in the US. [1]: 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...

195 points by xmpir 12y ago

a3n 12y ago

Anything you say today, however innocent, is potential "evidence" against you by a later government. "Your Honor, the accursed is on record, and admits, that he regularly voted for the Repugnicratic party. Why, he even admits to giving them money!" Any personal fact collected and stored, however politically or criminally innocuous, is potentially retrievable by criminals breaching the storage system. It doesn't matter how pure of heart today's collectors may be; if it's not observed or collected today then it can't be abused tomorrow.

explorigin 12y ago
Case in point: Brenden Eich
SaltyMaia 12y ago
If there isn't anything inherently wrong with collecting, and future abuse is the only thing you are worried about, then you should probably worry about protecting against abuses, not collecting. Especially if you have no other point to be had for privacy, when the opposition claims unobjected that giving it up can and does save lives. That said, I think the criminal breach argument is a valid one but the one that really nails it is one already mentioned above: "privacy isn't something you can just give up. It's a right given to society by our framers, not individuals. A smoothly functioning democracy depends on dissent, which requires privacy to allow alternate points of view to gain traction. So privacy is a social good, not a personal right, and if we reduce privacy, we are reducing our democracy. The Soviets didn't have privacy. Free countries must." Sans the soviet part, in my opinion... Seems useless and even fallaciously counter-productive to mention it, I don't get why it's even there edit: What I mean by the first paragraph, in case it's not clear, is that most technologies can and probably will be abused, which doesn't go a long way to say that they should be forbidden right at the start, if there is good to be had in them. You just have to be careful not to allow abuses (which by your post I figured you don't think are happening at this moment)
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > What I mean by the first paragraph, in case it's not clear, is that most technologies can and probably will be abused, which doesn't go a long way to say that they should be forbidden right at the start, if there is good to be had in them. You just have to be careful not to allow abuses (which by your post I figured you don't think are happening at this moment) Collecting data isn't a technology, it's a use of a technology. And preventing mass data collection is how you disallow abuse. The vast majority of the productive use of e.g. location tracking data is possible when you have the data on yourself and nobody has mass data on everyone. The things that are only possible with bulk data collection are almost universally bad.
LordKano 12y ago
I remind everyone of Brendan Eich. He donated money to a popular political cause and a few years later, after the political winds have shifted, a leak about this lead to him being forced out of his job. A lot of people are alright with this because the find Eich's position to be repugnant. Maybe it was but that's not the point. They need to remember that sometimes, they're not going to agree with the herd and it well could be them on the chopping block. Ubiquitous surveillance will make future McCarthy-style witch hunts possible and arguably it even makes them likely.

lectrick 12y ago

Also see Martin Fowler's great essay "Privacy Protects Bothersome People": http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html If you look over the course of history, what was considered "blasphemous," "treason", "illegal" and the like has changed A LOT.

jnorthrop 12y ago

Privacy matters at this moment in time for few reasons. There is little risk to an individual's rights due to profiling based on available information (which is the result of no or limited privacy). That doesn't mean there is no risk, but for most of us the risk is negligible. However, in the not-so-distant future it will be a much bigger deal. As data about our personal lives becomes more accessible and prolific, especially with the growth of IoT devices, and we get better at those big data profiling techniques we will see wider uses of profiling beyond nation security and marketing purposes. It is not hard to imagine a future where universities profile potential students based on available data and eliminate those deemed unfit (without ever looking at an application). Or employers doing similar things. Or insurance companies basing rates on profiling information. Reasonable scenarios become easy to imagine with the end result that discrimination becomes commonplace. Discrimination for those that listen to a certain type of music, or use a certain type of grammar, or view certain websites. That is a dangerous future and we are heading down that path. We, as a society, need to figure out how to address this before it is a problem, and paramount to successfully thwarting that type of future is to ensure we maintain our privacy. That is why privacy matters.

kindofanger 12y ago
Profiling and tracking techniques will continue to develop in accordance with the demands of the market. Consumers will gleefully move toward more data collection. This will not be resolved via legislation, and in fact may underscore the historical fact that our "right to privacy" only mattered when we were insignificant. Give people the power of computers and they are now a threat that requires being targeted and monitored. If anything, legislation will continue to increase the costs of remaining private. They will continue to slice away at the onion of freedom, and so long as most people have neat apps and devices, this will be sufficient, at least for a while, and by then it will be too late. Privacy absolutely matters, but we cannot count on the beneficence of legislators and corporations to bestow it on us.
mrfusion 12y ago
So I realized you're describing GATTICA but based on private information instead of DNA.

natch 12y ago

This article misses a huge thing everyone does have to hide, and that is the private information they have about their own family and friends. My Facebook, my contacts list, my emails, my messages, my call history... all of these have private information about friends and family, and this private information should not be shared with others without the full consent of everyone involved.

hawleyal 12y ago
I think you're right, the author doesn't cover those collaterally affected by secret information. However, this is outside of the author's main point. The author is focusing on the principle privacy is not just about secret keeping things secret. Your example of people who may collaterally affected falls under this category. It's just an example of using the word private to equate secret.
nthcolumn 12y ago
I never viewed the internet as private. I hid my tracks not because I'd done anything wrong but because there are 'crazies out there', I have plenty to hide and why take a chance? Then 'wow' forums - I could say controversial things, play devil's advocate, really push the discussion farther than IRL with little fear of reprisal or even rebuke. Which was great for me because I'm the guy who parks the other way round in the car lot. I have always been a natural dissenter. Then my friends joined facebook - early days before it was humungous. It raided their contacts and my little cell was exposed. I had not used a separate email address for each person I had ever met. Silly me. Then Zuck said 'privacy is dead' and I remembered that even before that in college he had said 'I can't believe these idiots are trusting me with all this information' - or something like that I can't really recall - and I knew he was right. I wish it weren't so. We speak more guardedly now. Still get downvoted.
csandreasen 12y ago
... and you've shared that information with Facebook, your e-mail provider and your phone provider. The question shouldn't be whether or not you have information to hide (everyone does), but what information are you hiding from who and why?

mkr-hn 12y ago

There's a building right down the street where they preached hatred for people like me not that long ago. I had something to hide (came out a year ago), and it was effectively a felony as recently as 2003. If the US ever plunges into theocracy, I'm as good as dead. I don't hide it since I live in a relatively liberal and progressive part of a socially conservative region. I'm a little concerned about backlash from a favorable SCOTUS ruling, but it's too late to go back. Maybe the Presbyterian church next door will send someone over to help them adjust.

pstuart 12y ago
> I'm as good as dead Some might take that as hyperbole, but I'm convinced that is indeed the case. I'm sure that if it was legal there's plenty of Good Christians who would be thrilled to hunt Liberal Atheists for sport. http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/27/believers-atheists-worse-rapists http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/27/believers-atheists-wor...
- Jdoemk2 12y ago
  It is hyperbole. And I can't believe you really think "plenty" of people would want to hunt you because of your beliefs. Don't exaggerate. Demonising people you disagree with does not help at all. Sensasionalising these problems won't bring about progress.
  - GauntletWizard 12y ago
    I'm not so certain that public lynchings for homosexuality wouldn't occur. On the other hand, there's plenty of people on the other side of the fence who'd see conservatives jailed and beaten (They'd not sully their hands themselves, just require the increasingly large nanny-state to do it) for disagreeing with their concept of 'progress'. Maybe we just need to open the floodgates and let these factions kill each other off.
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    People are being pushed off buildings or beheaded precisely because of their beliefs. Today. Oh, sure, it's some war-torn region and done by extremists...but they weren't doing it more than a few months ago, and now the for-that-reason dead are numbering well into 5-6 digits and rising fast. It's real, it's growing, and there's many people who would "hunt you because of your beliefs" if not for the normalcy of rule & law.

Eleutheria 12y ago

When you fight evil, you hide your moves so they don't move first. Evil will try by all means not letting you hide your moves by asking you, telling you, imposing you there is nothing to hide. Now you know where evil exactly is, and you hide even more, you mutate, you dissapear from the eyes of evil. That's the only way you fight them.

cryoshon 12y ago

Well, the hardest pulling argument I have for privacy is the following: 1. The government claims it must violate everyone's privacy in order to look for a few individuals, planning terrorist act X. 2. Though I wasn't involved in X before, I now go out of my way to avoid appearing sympathetic to X or involved in Y, which, while different from X, is adjacent to X, and therefore suspect in the eyes of the government who are hunting X. By a broad and ridiculous interpretation of X, X and Y come to be equal in the eyes of the government. 3. Discussions of or relating to X and Y are squelched sans privacy for fear of backlash; Z is next on the chopping block because it is adjacent to Y. At the start of this chain of events, discussion of Z was probably not quite mainstream, but it was certainly not equated to X, which was never acceptable by anyone. Thus, the slide from X to Z is complete, and the fallout from whatever is after Z can begin. Dissent is treated like treason in the USA. Anyone with an opinion that differs from the government has their speech targeted by reductions in privacy, and their speech will likely be chilled the more the government pushes the dissent-as-terrorism angle that they've shown to be keen for. They've already pulled "journalism", "privacy", "aiding or abetting by making youtube videos", "protesting", "whistleblowing" and "terrorism" into the same perverted continuum.

happyscrappy 12y ago
>Dissent is treated like treason in the USA. Hyperbole undermines your credibility. Also your arguments are to complicated.
- nijiko 12y ago
  TL;DR It might be legal or scrutinized today, but tomorrow is not set in stone.

Retric 12y ago

Whenever I think of this topic I think of a simple comedy skit done as a commercial. EX: We at the all seeing eye believe in transparency. From our naked policy (Queue lots of fat and somewhat blurry people), our computers (no cases) or our bathrooms (no stalls), we have no problems with you watching us watch you. (All Seeing Eye logo.) PS: I can easily see a long list of really creapy skits in this vein. EX2: At work (Moving all seeing eye coffie mugs) at play (kids tossing an all seeing eye ball) in sickness (All seeing stethoscope) and in health (pool lined with all seeing eyes) we are watching you (queue logo).

icebraining 12y ago
Maybe it could use The Police's song as the background track. I'm still amazed at how many people fail to see how creepy the lyrics really are. Thankfully for my sanity, the author does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Breath_You_Take#Origins_and_songwriting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Breath_You_Take#Origins_a...

diafygi 12y ago

I've always liked using the social good argument from the same author's previous work[1]. "I don't mind giving up some privacy for safety. I've got nothing to hide." "Well privacy isn't something you can just give up. It's a right given to society by our framers, not individuals. A smoothly functioning democracy depends on dissent, which requires privacy to allow alternate points of view to gain traction. So privacy is a social good, not a personal right, and if we reduce privacy, we are reducing our democracy. The Soviets didn't have privacy. Free countries must." That last part is usually what does the trick. [1]: http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf http://tehlug.org/files/solove.pdf

fragsworth 12y ago
I can speak from experience that the surveillance revealed by Snowden is already impacting the severity and tone of my political discussions with friends and colleagues. We are (mostly) pretty keenly aware of the fact that our conversations are going into a database somewhere, and will likely be processed by some algorithm later.
- rl3 12y ago
  In my experience, it was almost the opposite. The Snowden revelations illustrated how imperfect the NSA's coverage actually was compared to our prior speculation, and that they had some semblance of decency with regards to handling data. Of course, I have my doubts that said decency holds at higher levels, and I'm sure it greatly depends on how important you are. So unless you're a legitimate surveillance target such as a terrorist, politician, investigative journalist, or EFF attorney, you likely have nothing to fear.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "I'm sure it greatly depends on how important you are." And who you've dated...
  - pizza234 12y ago
    The NSA is essentially unaccountable for whatever it does; there's no decency in this. I hope that the assumption that investigate journalists and EFF attorneys are "legitimate" targets is highly ironic.

Alex3917 12y ago

If you look at all the top privacy theorists, one of the standard arguments for privacy is that it protects minorities and other people whose opinions are currently unpopular for whatever reason. But if you look at a lot of the recent writing coming from the feminist movement, over the last year there have been a ton of folks arguing that privacy mainly protects men and those currently in power, and actually oppresses women and minorities. Not sure what's going on here, but it's certainly something worth keeping an eye on.

gpcz 12y ago
I did some searches for (all without the quotes) "privacy patriarchy", "privacy protects men", and "privacy feminism," but I mostly found old articles from the 80s and 90s about how Roe vs. Wade should not have been argued from a privacy standpoint and arguments about how drawing a line where family is "private life" can enable domestic violence and inequality due to the state being reluctant to interfere with people's private lives. Can you provide some examples from the last year of the trend you're describing?
- Alex3917 12y ago
  > Can you provide some examples from the last year of the trend you're describing? I don't remember any specific articles, but they've mostly revolved around campus sexual assault and domestic violence. The Newsweek article from yesterday, What Silicon Valley Thinks of Women, was also complaining about a tech CEO who received a relatively lenient sentence for a domestic violence incident, which happened because the main evidence against him was thrown out due to being seized without a warrant. I'm not saying the author of the piece was definitely coming out against the 4th amendment in this instance, but that is more or less the general sentiment. edit: Here is one clear example: http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170 http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome... Also, here is a similar article on free speech. http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsafety-net-how-social-media-turned-against-women/381261/ http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-unsa... "Under the banner of free speech, companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been host to rape videos and revenge porn — which makes female users feel anything but free." I say similar because the right to free speech has also traditionally been seen as protecting the rights of minorities, whereas recently we've seen an uptick in folks claiming that free speech mostly protects those with power.

byjess 12y ago

I wish there was a gmail plugin that would make the users email publicly accessible, but read only. This would clearly test their "I have nothing to hide" argument.

superobserver 12y ago
That would be very amusing to see.
Karunamon 12y ago
This is a strawman or reduction to the absurd (I can't decide which) and it is throughly unhelpful to convincing anyone of anything - I'm getting rather tired of seeing it. There is a huge difference between refusing to have a lock on your front door and being okay with advertising to pay for a free service. There is also a huge difference between publicly broadcasting your email and only the government having access to it. Here's a hint: The NSA is not the general public. (This comment should absolutely not be construed as acceptance of spying)

totemizer 12y ago

privacy is a myth

spirit1988 12y ago

Nothing to hide? Hey, can you set a Gmail filter redirecting a copy of all your emails to my account? Do it, you have nothing to hide :) Or better, just use a public Twitter account for all your communications so we all can see what you are doing.

DontBeADick 12y ago

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

0942v8653 12y ago
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu#Disputed

rndn 12y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105485 Even more: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Privacy%20Matters%20even%20if%20you%20have&type=story&dateRange=all&prefix&page=0&sort=byPopularity https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Why%20Privacy%20Matters%20even...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Torgo 12y ago

"I have nothing to hide" really means "I don't care, stop talking to me about it".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cyphunk 12y ago

Then the government might start monitoring some phone calls. "It's just a few phone calls, nothing more." The government might install more video cameras in public places. "So what? Some more cameras watching in a few more places. No big deal." What I've learned from the privacy debate culture over the past years is that even amongst many privacy advocates the "So what?" mentality is prevalent. Their actions, not words, reveal this. While everyone rushes to use Threema, TextSecure, Telegram, OTR, GPG nearly no one bothers to check key fingerprints. That leads me to believe that the majority of people in this scene are using privacy technology as a means to simply feel better about themselves. To feel morally satisfied with themselves. It's not entirely dissimilar to the "support the troops" yellow ribbon, fight cancer "livestrong" wrist bands, or support the fight against AIDS red iPod. What we see is that people, even people that believe this is an important "fight", actually wind up with the same behavioural pattern of the "So what"'s. Both they and the "nothing to hide"'s reveal that this fight is actually not a fight at all but a window into the changing definitions of self and identity. Privacy is a deeper topic than government surveillance. I suppose the article attempted to get slightly past that but not far enough imho. The change of this social contract has little to do with the NSA scandal. The focus on government intrusion of privacy is actually a distraction from the more existentialist issue at hand. That being we have and are changing. The importance of secrecy is actually a great point from which to understand how the social contract of privacy is and will change. Philosopher George Simmel (born 1858) describes the importance of secrecy as: You are only an individual to the extent at which you are NOT transparent. (shout out to philosopher Alice Lagaay for her work on the topic) But Simmel, other dead philosophers, dead poets or dead "founding fathers", were products of their time. In retrospect it is clear that, with the latency created by the physicality of their world, they lived in a transparency surplus. For this reason I argue that the debate surrounding this social contract lay not in post-privacy but in the understanding of post-existentialism (a relook at existentialist thought from the understanding of the networked-self -- identity increasingly built on relationships and extroversion). The majority of people arguing "I have nothing to hide" aren't doing so because, as at one point this article argues, they feel the security value outweighs their concern for privacy. They are doing so because the networked self is creating very relevant non-security values to individuality. Something induced by the change from the physical self to self of the network. They are individuals that are focused on just living a better life, not some moralist agenda for a better life that used to be. If you hear "I have nothing to hide" and are inclined to enforce your moral understanding then you're missing the opportunity to understand these changes that are happening. If you do want to argue it, regardless, the best argument I've heard is from the Privacy Extremists: Because I value many things, therefor I hide many things http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/the-treasure-which-is-privacy/ http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/the-treasure-which-is-privacy/

jfoutz 12y ago

The thing that bugs me most is the asymmetry. I don't think the location of every person everywhere being public is really that scary. But that means lots of things. For one, the spouse fleeing from the abusive partner - scary situation, but full tracking enables actually enforcing "stay this far away" court orders. it's easier to rob banks when you know how long it will take for the police to get there, it's impossible to deny you were at the bank at the time. I realize it's risky to tell our enemies where our generals, senators and president are, but if the accessibility isn't total the information pretty much instantly becomes a tool for tyranny.

jwatte 12y ago

The only real solution is to build a culture where nobody (private our public) expects or gets privacy. There are lots of things people "would rather not share," that don't matter if we all know that people are people. Besides, for capitalism to work, we need rational actors with /perfect information/.

threatofrain 12y ago

Here's a potentially new argument to bring to the table, in addition to the usual: putting aside criminal or embarrassing issues, saying that you have nothing to hide is saying that your data is worth nothing. Someone might find connections about you that you didn't know, like the fact that you are more willing to pay higher prices for the same product when you and your partner are trying to have a baby (just saying hypothetically). I don't think that information should be free. At the very least, I'd want to charge. Someone might find out information about your children in indirect but legitimate ways. Perhaps your son is more likely to nag you to buy some product based on some controllable factor. I'd at least sell that kind of information for no less than $500. That's an iPad.

brandonmenc 12y ago

Few seem to be acknowledging the obvious: It's a bad thing that records will exist documenting the sexual proclivities of those with their fingers on the nuclear launch button. When senators, presidents, and generals can be blackmailed, we've got a problem. The largest levers of power will be moved by the most trivial information. The scenarios will range from invading countries to who gets that city building permit. All because someone is cheating on their spouse. It's not strictly "government officials versus us." Government officials will also be spied on. That, imo, is the real problem. Even people who have nothing to hide don't want to live in a world like that.

baumbart 12y ago

Nice article! One of the authors points was that people are not effected in their daily life through privacy problems (or at least that's what I read between the lines during that "dead bodies" metaphor). So here's my idea: I'll place a warning in my email signature, that people should take care what they write to me because my email account is spied on and everything is recorded. There are two points in this; first, it is quite accurate to reality, my (and everyone else's) email IS scanned for suspicious content for example. Second, it will shift the focus of people writing their text to this fact, that they are being monitored. This in turn should raise their awareness of the problem and put some effect on their life that they can easily perceive.

syntern 12y ago
Interesting suggestion. I hope you will share your experiences with it.

csours 12y ago

I've seen this article several times now, and every time it has been equally impenetrable. I think one of the major flaws is that this sentence appears in the 10th paragraph: "To evaluate the nothing-to-hide argument, we should begin by looking at how its adherents understand privacy" Why do we only begin to evaluate the argument in the 10th paragraph? This article has gravely serious implications, but it is needlessly long. I'm not from the TL;DR crowd, but this is TL;NC (Not Cogent)

aburan28 12y ago

I'm afraid that our political system is non-responsive to the mainstream opinion of the public. This privacy battle is unfortunately going to only change when something like all of Facebook's private messages end up on torrents

Tangokat 12y ago

I really like Moxie Marlinspike's Wired article on this [1]. Especially relevant to those of you in the US. [1]: 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...