[HN Gopher] Why 'I Have Nothing to Hide' Is the Wrong Way to Thi...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why 'I Have Nothing to Hide' Is the Wrong Way to Think About
       Surveillance (2013)
        
       Author : thunderbong
       Score  : 44 points
       Date   : 2021-07-22 17:07 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | kodah wrote:
       | I don't think you'll ever convince someone who doesn't believe in
       | privacy of the value in privacy until they're hurt. Privacy
       | touches all kinds of subjects from centralization, to corporate
       | power, advertising revenue, government control, etc... and
       | therefore becomes frivolous to discuss.
       | 
       | To me the problem is that most people think they're living a
       | "normal" well-to-do life until a group gets power that thinks you
       | don't or didn't and wants to arrange a circus for attention.
       | 
       | Some popular responses I've seen to pro-privacy concern:
       | 
       | - caring about privacy is "narcissistic" because nobody would
       | possibly care about Tom or John's internet search history.
       | 
       | - privacy is just an excuse for people to avoid "consequences".
       | 
       | - privacy people are just criminals disguised as advocates.
       | 
       | There's commonality in these responses, but I'm not sure what it
       | is.
        
         | fsflover wrote:
         | > I don't think you'll ever convince someone who doesn't
         | believe in privacy of the value in privacy until they're hurt.
         | 
         | If the person understands why the freedom of speech is
         | important, you can explain that privacy is needed to protect
         | whistleblowers, journalists and activists. Only when everyone
         | has pivacy, it becomes hard for the government to target them.
        
           | kodah wrote:
           | Yeah, I've tried that explanation as well. I think the
           | problem is that privacy as a problem is fairly abstract and
           | multi-branched in both issues and logic.
        
             | not_zxc wrote:
             | Ask them to give you 100 bucks from their wallet. Then keep
             | it.
             | 
             | Cheapest privacy lesson they'll ever get.
             | 
             | (The point: privacy about who is allowed to acquire the
             | valuables. The owner is in control, _not_ someone else.
             | Once they decide to give that away: fine, now it 's no
             | longer under their control.)
        
         | RIMR wrote:
         | I think that the core issue here is what "privacy" means to
         | people. Data about you can be hard to quantify, and in the
         | digital age there are plenty of reasons to collect certain kind
         | of data.
         | 
         | For example, I wouldn't care much about my aggregate step data
         | from my phone or watch being used to observe walking habits or
         | popular walking routes in my city, nor would I mind much about
         | my aggregate location data being used to observe store
         | patronage in my city. I prefer to opt-in to these things, and
         | have an understanding of the data I am sharing, and who I am
         | sharing it with, but as long as it's aggregate, non-
         | identifiable data, I am willing to part with it and still feel
         | that my privacy has remained intact.
         | 
         | But as you say, people don't value privacy until they're hurt,
         | and I think that's a really good place to draw the line. If the
         | data collected about me can be used to hurt me specifically -
         | to target me or expose sensitive information about me as an
         | individual - then my privacy has been violated.
         | 
         | The recent Grindr controversy is a good example. If people opt-
         | in to data sharing in the app, and the app provides clean,
         | anonymized data to their partners that only reveals aggregate
         | trends, then the privacy of individual users is still
         | maintained. But since the data that Grindr sold was enough to
         | out a clergyman and expose the specific gay businesses he was a
         | patron of, then they clearly failed to preserve their users'
         | privacy. The data they sold was enough to target and hurt
         | someone individually.
         | 
         | The big issue I see is that most corporate data-sharing
         | agreement put some of the burden of privacy of the recipient of
         | the data, with the expectation that the data be handled in good
         | faith and NOT be used to target people or mine information
         | about specific people. The burden should lie entirely with the
         | seller of the data to ensure that no privacy-violating data
         | could be inferred from the data (including if combined with
         | other publicly/commercially available datasets), and if they
         | cannot ensure that then they should have no legal right to sell
         | it, because there's no way they can ensure that it will be
         | handled in good faith.
        
         | not_zxc wrote:
         | > _I don 't think you'll ever convince someone who doesn't
         | believe in privacy of the value in privacy until they're hurt._
         | 
         | But that fundamentally doesn't matter in the least. I don't
         | care what they do; but they cannot get access to my data
         | without my approval. And they're definitely not getting my
         | approval without some really good justification.
         | 
         | It's my data; I have no obligation to anyone else(*) to
         | disclose anything about it.
         | 
         | (*) legal restrictions aside -- which is vastly different from
         | someone who wants your data claiming they're legally entitled
         | to it.
        
         | tqi wrote:
         | I don't think the majority of people are against privacy. I
         | think the majority of people don't think that the level of
         | privacy they give up is too high a price to pay for the
         | services they receive. That seems reasonable to me?
         | 
         | It often feels like privacy advocates start from a position
         | that anyone who doesn't hold the same view as them must be
         | missing some key piece of information, and are unwilling to
         | accept that a person might decide that the tradeoff is actually
         | worth it to them?
        
           | jimmygrapes wrote:
           | In my own experience and discussions, it isn't so much that
           | people are OK with risking privacy in favor of using any
           | given service/application, but rather more a sense of
           | despair: "I hate it but there's nothing I can do." In some
           | ways this may be the same thing, in that they desire the use
           | of the service/app so much that their desire for privacy is
           | weighed lower.
           | 
           | Personally, my desire for privacy is starting to harm my
           | daily life, as I am apparently unable to access Facebook
           | Groups or Marketplace, both of which are heavily and almost
           | exclusively used in my community for meetups and personal
           | sales respectively. I know rationally that I can make a bare
           | bones FB profile just to use these, but my personal (perhaps
           | unjustified) paranoia currently still wins out.
           | 
           | On that note, if anybody knows of any open source or upcoming
           | alternatives to those two services, please let me know so
           | that I can see about making at least a local dent in FB's
           | monopoly.
        
           | kodah wrote:
           | > It often feels like privacy advocates start from a position
           | that anyone who doesn't hold the same view as them must be
           | missing some key piece of information, and are unwilling to
           | accept that a person might decide that the tradeoff is
           | actually worth it to them?
           | 
           | That could be the case, albeit that's fairly uncharitable.
           | Usually when I talk to anti-privacy people they have a strong
           | bond to a particular thing that _makes_ them anti-privacy.
           | That could be a bond with corporations that benefit from a
           | lack of privacy or it could be some moral community that
           | tells them a lack of privacy let 's them find all the "bad
           | guys". Of course, that's anecdotal.
           | 
           | Personally speaking, I don't mind decreased privacy as long
           | as I have a way to opt out and data stays very anonymized.
           | Providing that kind of choice, and minimal negative effects
           | that negate the ability of a person to opt out, is the
           | optimal choice for me.
        
         | bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
         | The commonality is "I don't think that I have anything to hide"
         | or more specifically, "I don't fully understand what exactly I
         | am hiding from or why I need to hide."
         | 
         | Last I checked, most people understand privacy from other
         | people at some level. I only say that because I still see
         | people wearing clothes and closing the door when using the
         | restroom.
         | 
         | What they don't understand is why they need privacy from
         | centralized points of failure/exploitation.
        
       | not_zxc wrote:
       | No, no, no.
       | 
       | The reason the "nothing to hide" argument is wrong is because its
       | starting point is wrong. The surveillor has to justify
       | themselves, not the surveillee.
       | 
       | Put another way: I do not have to argue why someone else should
       | not get access to my information. No one else should get access
       | to my information unless and until they come up with reasons --
       | and I accept those reasons.
       | 
       | You do NOT need to justify why you're not sharing data.
        
       | glonq wrote:
       | When I was younger, I held the "nothing to hide" PoV. But now I
       | think about it more critically, like "how could [...will!] these
       | surveillance powers be misused/abused?"
        
       | commandlinefan wrote:
       | TL;DR: "if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear" is
       | absolutely a correct observation, but we all have or will have in
       | the future something to hide so we all have something to fear.
        
         | headShrinker wrote:
         | > TL;DR: "if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear" is
         | absolutely a correct observation
         | 
         | False. You'll fear losing privacy and freedom to speak freely
         | even if you have nothing to hide. We have seen this effect in
         | real-time as governments began "secretly" monitoring
         | communication in 2006 and even more so as tech companies
         | started banning speech. You will self-censor even when you have
         | nothing to hide.
         | 
         | Privacy is like the bathroom door. We close it even though
         | everyone knows what we are doing. It's not a secret.
         | 
         | It's like the freedom to speak even if you have nothing to say.
         | 
         | You wouldn't use a public bathroom stall that didn't have a
         | door. You would be plenty angry and confused if I started
         | arbitrarily dictating what you could and couldn't say.
         | 
         | You have plenty to fear even when you have nothing to hide.
         | 
         | Privacy should not be confused with secrecy. These two are
         | often conflated by those who wish to compromise your privacy.
        
           | not_zxc wrote:
           | Worse: the "nothing to hide" argument is mistaking who has
           | the power with who would like to have the power.
           | 
           | You're the boss of you; no one else has a right to info about
           | you.
           | 
           | (sure, barring legal circumstances -- which should be
           | challengable in a court)
        
       | lern_too_spel wrote:
       | I have never seen anybody use the "I have nothing to hide"
       | argument, but I have seen many people write rebuttals to it. This
       | effort seems like an enormous waste of time.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-22 23:03 UTC)