[HN Gopher] 'I've got nothing to hide' and other misunderstandin...
___________________________________________________________________
'I've got nothing to hide' and other misunderstandings of privacy
(2007)
Author : _____k
Score : 133 points
Date : 2023-08-13 18:23 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (papers.ssrn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (papers.ssrn.com)
| cortic wrote:
| Posted this three years ago, but its still relevant: My nothing
| to hide argument;
|
| Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from
| who? Surely you want to hide your children from abusers and
| predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con
| artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves..
| Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or
| your blood type from rich mobsters with kidney problems..
|
| we don't know who are any of these things. So we should protect
| ourselves from all of them, in effect we have everything to hide
| from someone, and no idea who someone is.
|
| edit; let me just add the obvious, that the government and
| police, Google and Facebook, are made up of many someones.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| This is actually well phrased
|
| Its often that we see something thats wrong, but we struggle to
| express why. This does.
| hackernewds wrote:
| A murderer would like to hide their location history from civil
| justice authorities. We often argue the cons but not the pros
| of being able to trace history.
|
| A lot of ongoing evidence is based on timestamped written
| communication. Including for the 1/6 indictment, here you could
| argue what constitutes as "right" or "wrong".
| dataflow wrote:
| "The argument that, _Hey, I don 't mind you listening to my phone
| calls, I have nothing to hide_, is not an argument for this. You
| don't know anybody who does this for a living claiming that
| that's a good argument. It's a horrible argument. As Americans,
| we deserve that private space."
|
| - Former Director of National Intelligence (Michael Hayden):
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2HDM86XgI&t=1h18s
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| Unless we're talking about financial privacy, in which case many
| alleged privacy supporters will curiously switch sides and defend
| KYC, transaction tracking and other ways of controlling other
| people's wallets.
| charlieyu1 wrote:
| I don't defend KYC.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| A lot of people just defend the status quo no matter what it
| is, and the arguments for why things are the way they are now
| are what they teach in schools and even universities.
|
| Most people also don't realize how ineffective KYC laws are.
| Studies have shown that they just don't work. Small time
| criminals use cash or barter, big time criminals infiltrate
| banks or have ties to international criminal organizations with
| their own shadow banking systems. It's just not a useful
| requirement and the significant costs outweigh the negligible
| benefits.
|
| Creating a market for shadow banking systems is extra bad
| because then the large criminal organizations get the bank's
| margin which they can use to fund more criminal activity.
|
| It's only then that we get to the privacy costs and chilling
| effects of putting everything people buy in a database. And the
| costs it imposes on marginalized populations. And the
| destruction of value of any service that can't exist because it
| would have to collect social security numbers from users or
| otherwise impose high transaction costs on low margin
| transactions.
|
| I'm not entirely sure who the lobby for keeping them even is.
| People who don't know how ineffective they are? Banks who want
| to keep barriers to entry high? Just brute authoritarians who
| want to spy on everyone every way they can?
| YeBanKo wrote:
| Did he somewhere defend KYC? I haven't heard anyone who defends
| KYC except a bank teller and a scammy car salesman.
| g105b wrote:
| I also have nothing to hide, but I still choose to close my
| curtains at night.
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAkZT_4vL_Y
|
| What's he building in there?
|
| What the hell is he building in there?
|
| He has subscriptions to those magazines
|
| He never waves when he goes by
|
| He's hiding something from the rest of us
|
| He's all to himself
|
| I think I know why
| philipov wrote:
| To all those people that have nothing to hide, please provide me
| with your bank account numbers and mother's maiden name.
| elwell wrote:
| The government can have that stuff of mine, but not just any
| random person.
| zlg_codes wrote:
| Why trust an entity that has historically been proven to be
| untrustworthy?
|
| That's like getting punched by your bouncer and still
| expecting him to be on your side.
| chacham15 wrote:
| The simplest retort I've heard to "I have nothing to hide" is
| "then send me a nude photo of yourself." Theres nothing wrong
| with nude bodies, but it is definitely private. I.e. privacy has
| nothing to do with hiding wrong/illegal things.
|
| (obligatory disclaimer: a little inaccuracy saves a lot of
| explanation, but I think this gets the gist across)
| wendyshu wrote:
| Sure, where should I send it?
| [deleted]
| zvmaz wrote:
| Remove privacy (from state and society) and you will live in
| constant fear of being shunned, ostracized, persecuted. The
| result is less individuality, less creativity, less exploration.
| netfortius wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10847842
| baxtr wrote:
| I'm wondering: is there a good list of data privacy failure
| consequences?
|
| There are good lists of breaches but few describing what happened
| to the people afterwards. Credit card theft resulting in a loss
| being the most obvious one.
|
| Such concrete (real) examples would help me to argue with people
| who say: all this non-sense about data privacy. What would anyone
| want to do with your data anyways?
| Swizec wrote:
| > I'm wondering: is there a good list of data privacy failure
| consequences?
|
| The ultimate example is how 1940's Germany used 1930's
| Germany's census data. In 1933 it didn't seem so bad to tick a
| box with your religious affiliation ...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| The Netherlands as well. Dutch census religious affiliation
| data were used by the imposed regime 1940--45.
|
| Several Dutch officials enacted wholesale destruction of
| those records as the occupation became obviously imminent,
| which saved many, though the Jewish population of the
| Netherlands fell from 154,887 in 1941 to 14,346 in 1947.
|
| The point being it's not necessarily _your own_ government
| you need be worried about.
|
| In another variant on this, surveillance records kept by the
| East German Ministry for State Security (Ministerium fur
| Staatssicherheit, a/k/a the Stasi) and Soviet KGB were
| acquired by successor governments (unified German and post-
| Soviet states including Ukraine). See:
| <https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/unearthing-soviet-
| sec...>
|
| (I'm trying without success to find a reference to the
| destruction of Dutch census records, though I'm pretty
| certain this did actually happen.)
| momirlan wrote:
| ask them to share their email password
| Karunamon wrote:
| Not a useful argument; anyone making the "nothing to hide"
| argument is implicitly arguing the trustworthiness (or the
| low likelihood of a mistake impacting them) of the
| state/justice system. You and other members of the general
| public are not part of that.
|
| This is also why the snippy "so you don't have (locks on your
| doors/blinds on your windows/etc.)?" comeback does not work.
| jaredhallen wrote:
| Who makes up the state and justice system? Is it not
| people?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > "nothing to hide" argument is implicitly arguing the
| trustworthiness (or the low likelihood of a mistake
| impacting them) of the state/justice system
|
| There is a massive assumption that only justice systen will
| have access to this data. We know this data is sold to
| anyone, even criminals.
| pinguin3 wrote:
| No list, but here's a non-US example
|
| Torture, rape and imprisonment based on phone data (Belarus
| 2022)
| probably_wrong wrote:
| I think location data is the best example.
|
| First, you have those who stormed the Capitol and were
| identified by the NYT based on their phones location [1]. You
| also have the Substack that used location data to publicly out
| a priest as gay [2].
|
| You then have the companies selling location data of people who
| visit abortion clinics [3]. They obtain this location from SDKs
| that they deploy via apps you may already be using. And if you
| want to get more dystopian remember that Texas allows citizens
| to sue anyone for "aiding or abetting a post-heartbeat
| abortion" [4], meaning that driving your friend Rebeca to a
| clinic can land you in a lawsuit for at least $10k by people
| who do this as their day job.
|
| Even if you're not sued, remember that companies have been
| reliably predicting whether you're pregnant for at least 10
| years [5] and using it to influence your behavior in their
| favor. This one may be the one with the "least bad"
| consequences but, paradoxically, the one that better drives
| home the point since nothing here is criminal.
|
| [1] https://archive.is/r6c7b
|
| [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkbxp8/grindr-location-
| data-...
|
| [3] https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vzjb/location-data-
| abortio...
|
| [4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-abortion-law-bounty-
| hunte...
|
| [5] https://archive.is/Z4x2f
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| > Credit card theft resulting in a loss being the most obvious
| one.
|
| This seems more like a security than a privacy issue. The data
| (credit card info) is not shared intentionally, but is leaked
| due to a security hole.
| dspillett wrote:
| Credit card issues, and many other forms of fraud, can result
| from identity theft which is both a security and privacy
| issue.
| maxbond wrote:
| There isn't such a tight distinction between security and
| privacy. Consider the Ashley Madison leak. I don't mean to
| defend people who violate their SO's trust - that's
| unconscionable - but clearly this was both a privacy and a
| security issue, data was stolen and leaked which revealed
| really intimate information which ruined people's lives.
| kkfx wrote:
| In mere privacy terms?
|
| - a women start planning to have a child, her employer know
| that, she got fired before the conception, legally;
|
| - you are someone who know his/shes knows his rights, no jobs
| for you since you are not easy to exploit;
|
| - you have a certain political opinion, not nice toward the
| present government? You'll got hard career and all possible
| "issues", just like getting more traffic red lights than
| someone else, more police checks causing delays and so on.
|
| The list is long. The point is: we can't design a society like
| a factory, we can't plan evolution beyond banal things, so we
| need _noise_ , variability that nobody can master to ensure
| nothing can last too much impeding further evolution just
| because someone manage to grab a certain position of power and
| do want to end the history to remain there forever in a loop.
| That's why we need privacy, diversity, and so on.
| baxtr wrote:
| Thanks.
|
| I was looking for real cases. Theory won't convince the nay-
| sayers
| antihipocrat wrote:
| Real cases are everywhere, in front of everyone, every day.
| For example:
|
| Victims of domestic violence or stalking. Victims of
| personal vendettas or bigotry from figures in authority.
| Victims of exploitative employers. These victims have done
| nothing wrong and they need privacy.
|
| All kinds of people are randomly distributed throughout all
| professions and strata of society. Politicians, police,
| lawyers, doctors, posties, real estate agents, chefs. All
| have great and terrible human representation.
|
| Now think about a person you distrust/dislike the most in
| your life. Would you want to give them access to everything
| about you?
|
| The type of person that you like least will eventually have
| access to your information. If you don't protect your
| privacy now, who will protect you then?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Real cases are everywhere, in front of everyone, every
| day
|
| W He is looming to something that is well written and
| convincing, something salient. Punchy
|
| Your post is not that. it is difficult to express this so
| wlel that it is irrefutable
| pseingatl wrote:
| Anecdotal evidence is the best evidence.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Well, I know that, not too long ago, employers were asking
| prospective hires to give them their Facebook and Twitter
| credentials. I'm talking full login credentials. Other ones
| asked employees to friend them. I think a lot of HR
| departments also required employees to friend HR people.
|
| I'm pretty sure that's documented. The courts slammed that
| drawer shut, pretty hard.
|
| Something that might hit a little closer to home, here:
| When I was still looking for work, about four or five years
| ago, a couple of the companies asked me to tell them my HN
| ID (I'm not sure if I had joined here, back then).
|
| That's one of the reasons that I try to behave well, here.
| I'm not looking for work, but a lot of y'all are. I try not
| to propagate fights (although it can be tough), because the
| person that _really_ gets harmed, is the one attacking me.
| They are showing their ass, in front of potential employers
| and teammates, and, even though I might not like them, I
| don 't want to play a part in their not getting a job.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| [dead]
| deepthunder wrote:
| The problem with the "I've got nothing to hide" argument is it's
| not "you" who decides what is "right" or "wrong". The entity
| doing the "spying" determines what is right or wrong. "You" might
| think "x" is ok, however the "spying" entity may have the
| opposite view. And it is the "spying" entity's opinion that
| matters, not yours, because it always them that have the power
| and authority in determining what is "right" or "wrong".
| Moreover, definitions change on what is "right" or "wrong".
| kvdveer wrote:
| Example: in the 1930, Dutch municipalities would record
| ethnicity for their citizens. The argument was that ethnicity
| wasn't something you'd need to hide, and it could be useful
| should you need to identify yourself.
|
| When in 1940 the German occupiers took over, those records
| turned out to be very useful for their genocide.
| tremon wrote:
| _would record ethnicity_
|
| *religious affiliation
|
| It makes sense that ethnicity would have been recorded as
| well, but FAFAIK the Germans mostly used the data on
| religious identity (i.e. which persons were a member of which
| church community).
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| And that makes what difference exactly...?
| belter wrote:
| The main issue is the reversal of presumption of innocence.
| Assuming privacy is only to hide wrongdoing...
| Zetice wrote:
| The real problem is that this argument relies on people
| actually meaning "anything". It's a strawman that's so good,
| you get people actually trying to argue it, but the real
| argument isn't about absolute publicity of information, it's
| about providing access to additional information as a means to
| investigate wrongdoing. Very few people are practically
| suggesting every single fact ought to be public about a person.
|
| Besides, doomsaying that "anything could be illegal!" isn't
| backed by anything real or lasting.
| kypro wrote:
| I completely agree with this.
|
| I live in the UK and when I raise concerns about government
| surveillance here people often say, "I've got nothing to hide".
|
| I learnt of a case just this week where a guy on Reddit left a
| slightly controversial comment and ended up being charged with
| hate speech, lost his job and received hate abuse online for
| his opinion.
|
| It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't care
| about a teen who died in police custody, specifically that this
| teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey"
| (Toxteth being a fairly rough inner-city area of Liverpool).
|
| The teen he was insulting was dead and unable to take offence,
| but the police officer on Reddit at the time took offence and
| decided to prosecute the guy anyway.
|
| I'm bringing this up because I don't think most people in the
| UK realise this. Insulting people online or just saying
| something mildly offensive will often lead to prosecution. I
| mean just this week an autistic child got arrested for calling
| a lesbian police officer a lesbian here in the UK.
|
| We all have something to hide when what's right and wrong is
| this arbitrary.
|
| Legal notes:
|
| I do not agree with the views of the Redditor referenced in my
| comment. I understand how someone may be offended by what he
| said, but disagree specifically with it being an offence to
| state an offensive position online.
|
| I also do not agree with the behaviour autistic child mentioned
| in my comment. I understand that being autistic is not an
| excuse for being offensive. Again, I am only bringing this up
| because I do not believe it should be an offence to offend.
|
| The offensive language used in my comment were direct quotes
| used specifically to make a point.
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| > It was kinda crazy because "all" he said was that didn't
| care about a teen who died in police custody, specifically
| that this teen was a, "good for nothing, spice smoking,
| Toxteth monkey"
|
| "
|
| Rowan O'Connell, 23, was hit with a fine by magistrates today
| over the sick outbust following the death of Mzee, 18.
|
| The teenager, described by his mother as a "gentle giant",
| died after becoming unwell while detained by police officers
| at Liverpool ONE in July.
|
| O'Connell took to social media website Reddit, where he made
| baseless allegations, labelling Mzee a "good for nothing,
| spice smoking, Toxteth monkey".
|
| He added: "As I say, who gives a f**."
|
| "
|
| https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-
| mo...
|
| So, Not quite what you said.
|
| > or just saying something mildly offensive will often lead
| to prosecution
|
| That's not mild, and you either know it or should know it.
|
| > I mean just this week an autistic child got arrested for
| calling a lesbian police officer a lesbian here in the UK.
|
| No link eh? What a surprise.
|
| ---
|
| edit: this isn't about the rights/wrongs of what was said in
| this case but your (deliberately?) incomplete description of
| them. I actually share your concern about freedom of speech
| but twisting facts doesn't build your case well.
| dbsmith83 wrote:
| > He added: "As I say, who gives a f***." (sic)
|
| I don't understand your point. You both said the exact same
| thing: "good for nothing, spice smoking, Toxteth monkey",
| except you also said the guy added "Who gives a fuck?"
| which basically means "who cares?". Does adding a "who
| cares?" make the originally phrase much different?
| edholland wrote:
| Here's a link to the story about the autistic teen incident
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/police-arrest-
| autistic...
| hackernewds wrote:
| Would you agree murder is "wrong" and bad actors should be able
| to hide their culpability?
| anotherevan wrote:
| "I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but
| because your judgement and intentions are."
|
| https://infosec.exchange/@itisiboller/109472911587284824
| hackernewds wrote:
| I'd like to save this quote. However Hackernews provides not
| much functionality in-platform to do so.
|
| Although I will contend the quote needs to be amended, since
| this doesn't apply to agents whose actions and intentions _are_
| questionable, and I would prefer they are not able to hide
| them.
| bondant wrote:
| Well, you can add it to your favorite comments. Click the on
| the date on the post and then click on favorite.
| anotherevan wrote:
| The link I provided is the original source, if you want to
| bookmark that.
|
| You can also click on the timestamp of a HN comment and get
| the link just to that, if you prefer to bookmark that.
|
| Or there's cut and paste. You have lots of options, it
| doesn't need to be built in to every web site.
|
| Regarding your suggested amendments, sorry, I have no control
| over what Martin's daughter says.
| ilyt wrote:
| I found out that asking people that got "nothing to hide so
| neither should you" to mount a video stream from their bedroom
| shuts them up right quick.
| elwell wrote:
| I don't have anything to hide from a person I can trust.
| logdap wrote:
| [dead]
| c-linkage wrote:
| Correction: you don't have anything to hide from a person you
| _believe_ you can trust.
|
| That's how confidence schemes work.
| tremon wrote:
| So what you're saying is that you should be able to determine
| yourself who you trust with information about yourself?
| nulld3v wrote:
| You may trust that the government has good intentions, but do
| you trust that they properly secure all the information they
| collect?
| salad-tycoon wrote:
| I've got plenty to hide, and I hide all my most prized things as
| best as I can.
|
| I enjoy obfuscating things s much as possible just to be a tiny
| grain of sand of irritation in big data's crotch.
|
| I'm also maybe a bit oppositionally defiant but I enjoy hiding my
| shit. Why does anyone assume a right to know everyone's business?
| someone321 wrote:
| Can you elaborate what you exactly obfuscate ? Would be
| interested in learning new privacy things.
| jansan wrote:
| > Can you elaborate what you exactly obfuscate ?
|
| I would be very disappointed by grandparent if he/she
| actually does that.
| alaxapta7 wrote:
| Not OP, but one thing I do is having a fake name on my
| mailbox and doorbell. I figured my neighbours don't need to
| know, and parcel services don't care. I don't legally live on
| that address, so that helps.
|
| I also try to keep my browser's headers more generic,
| especially the Accept-Language header (not applicable or
| particulary helpful for US residents, though). The rest (VPN,
| [and therefore] no Google and no social networks) I wouldn't
| consider an obfuscation.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| YOU: 'I've Got Nothing to Hide'
|
| ME: Awesome, can you share your gmail and icloud passwords with
| me?
| elwell wrote:
| YOU: Strawman argument
| TuringNYC wrote:
| ME: Logical conclusion
| wizofaus wrote:
| How many people actually believe the "nothing to hide" argument
| though? I don't doubt some do, but I'm pretty sure most of the
| pushback against privacy laws etc. comes from corporations who
| stand to benefit from collecting and selling private information
| about their customers. Though I will say some of the technical
| challenges thrown up by some privacy laws are considerable, and
| trying to comply to them (including being audited etc.) doesn't
| often feel like the best use of resources.
| tromp wrote:
| Here's the first listed criticism of the saying on its Wikipedia
| page [1], by none other than Edward Snowden:
|
| > Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because
| you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't
| care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
| glenstein wrote:
| This one has confused me. A lot of the spirit of it I get
| behind; I am similarly indignant at the nothing to hide
| argument, I am similarly appreciative of the value of free
| speech, and I appreciate the idea that you might hope that you
| have "something to say", in the sense of having values, or ways
| in which you are engaged in the world that are important and
| meaningful to you. And I even understand and support the idea
| that you are letting a beautiful right go unused if you have
| "nothing to say."
|
| But, with all of those elements in place, I don't see how they
| serve to counter the "nothing to hide" argument. As other
| commenters here have pointed out, and as the paper has pointed
| out, it's (1) nothing to hide, from whom, and (2) just because
| you believe your actions are innocent, doesn't mean your
| information won't be used against you to target you.
|
| But that's very different than the point that is apparently
| being made about free speech. It may be a bummer to live a life
| where you have nothing to say, but the failure implied by that
| is of a different kind.
|
| It may just be that I'm missing an obvious point, but, as far
| as I can tell, if you have "nothing to say", the problem is
| that you've resigned yourself to a life that doesn't assert any
| values or meaning. Meanwhile, the nothing to hide problem
| relates to not anticipating how bad actors will use your
| information against you.
|
| It _would_ be a 1:1 analogy if the point being made was, well,
| you have no information? If you have nothing to hide because
| you have no significant life attributes or life events, I can
| see a way that is a criticism of an unfulfilled life, and
| something that makes the comparison to free speech make sense.
| But... it 's kind of lateral to the concerns about privacy that
| I take to be the most essential to maintaining it as a right.
| But again, I may just be missing something obvious.
| the_lego wrote:
| To elaborate: "nothing to hide" ignores the benefits to society
| that others, who _do_ have something to hide, bring.
| Whistleblowers, various lawyers, activists, investigative
| journalists, labor organizers, etc.
|
| Even if you have nothing to hide, you'll benefit immensely
| when, e.g., people with something to hide reveal your leaders
| are trying to goad you into a war under false pretenses.
|
| To say nothing of how much the perspective changes if you live
| in a place like Russia or China. Historically, times and places
| where a good, honest person could bare their lives to the
| government were few. How sure are you this period of _relative_
| beneficence of our governments towards its citizens will last,
| that you dare throw away yours and your children 's freedom on
| the bet your future masters won't mean you harm?
| karaterobot wrote:
| I got through 16 pages of the article, and he hadn't gotten to
| the point yet. He was summarizing previous articles he'd written.
| I understand that he's trying to steelman the "nothing to hide"
| argument, and has dispensed with the usual retorts (ably
| summarized in this thread so far). I'd like to know what his real
| response actually is. Did anybody get through the whole thing?
| gcanyon wrote:
| So much this. "I apologize for writing such a long essay; I did
| not have time to write a shorter one."
|
| This is probably too brief, but here's Claude's take on a
| summary:
|
| Here is a one page summary of the article "I've Got Nothing to
| Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy by Daniel J.
| Solove:
|
| Solove argues that the "nothing to hide" argument, which
| contends that there is no threat to privacy if a person has
| nothing embarrassing or illegal to conceal, stems from a narrow
| conception of privacy. He proposes a pluralistic framework for
| understanding privacy, grounded in Wittgenstein's concept of
| family resemblances. Privacy violations consist of a web of
| related problems, not connected by a common element, but
| resembling each other.
|
| Solove's taxonomy of privacy problems includes four categories:
| information collection, information processing, information
| dissemination, and invasion. Harms include chilling effects,
| power imbalances, breaches of confidentiality, and exclusion
| from decision-making processes. Many privacy issues cause
| structural problems rather than individual injuries.
|
| The "nothing to hide" argument focuses too narrowly on
| disclosure of secrets. It fails to account for contextual
| integrity, social value in keeping promises of confidentiality,
| dangers of aggregation, problems of exclusion, and difficulties
| in rebutting predictive prophesies about one's behavior. The
| debate should center on oversight and accountability
| procedures, not whether certain government actions should be
| allowed. In short, by conceptualizing privacy more
| pluralistically, the deficiencies of the "nothing to hide"
| argument become apparent.
| chrisnight wrote:
| Ever since Row v Wade was overturned, the method I've taken in
| arguments is to point out the now blatantly existing cases of
| misuse of private data to prosecute people. Many people know
| about the news now about how people have been arrested and
| convicted because of phone data that should have been private.
|
| I haven't had this argument very often though, so so far there
| aren't indications as to its effectiveness. We'll have to see how
| it turns out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-13 23:00 UTC)