Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

Another common refrain, especially since Snowden, is just glib defeatism ("they already have all my info anyway") which is also a poor way to think about policy (and to make personal choices, but I won't argue those with most people)

I really think the main reason people are complacent is more often that the spying is abstract to them. They wouldn't like it if someone were pointing a big camera through their window, but data being aggregated through their phone and smart home gadgets and computer and CCTVs in public places and leaks on distant websites doesn't register in their actual attention, so it doesn't emotionally feel like a big deal to them

We should also be scared of cases where some investigator or agency goes: "We need to make an example of somebody and That Dude is close enough."

Or where regime changes and suddenly everything you didn't care about is dangerous and does need to be hidden, like where volunteering in a pro-democracy group or having an abortion retroactively becomes a sentence to the reeducation gulag.

> Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'.

-- Snuff by Terry Pratchett

I've always taken issues with this phrase as many people would be lead to believe the opposite as well: If you have something to hide, you have something to fear.

Which further suggests that as soon as there's anything you want to hide, that has to be something criminal.

Of course, this is utter garbage. People _do_ have things to hide, and it is rarely criminal / unlawful.

See what's happening in China. The surveillance and oppression are particularly severe in the Xinjiang region, where authorities have implemented a multi-layered system of monitoring and control. This includes facial recognition cameras, mobile police checkpoints, and the collection of biometric data. See also [1]

We must demand transparency and accountability from those in power, whilst supporting organizations that work to protect our privacy.

Similarly, private sector business will always seek more of our personal data in order to make more money, and the tech industry is enabling more intrusive government surveillance.

It requires activism to protect our freedom.

[1] https://theconversation.com/digital-surveillance-is-omnipres...

Privacy is the right to sovereignty over one's personal/intimate sphere - whether it's insight to information about oneself or physical contact. The right to consent, for instance, would be a component of the right to privacy.

It's about power. And by extension it's about the power balance between the people and any intruder of their private sphere, whether it's a friend, a stranger, the public, the state, the law and so on.

In other words, the less privacy there is the less effective power both the individual as well as the entire people have.

That's why it's a basic human right.

This component of privacy reminds me of “Preference Falsification,” a phenomenon described by Taimur Kuran. Although Kuran’s examples are often of Eastern Europe, this essay puts it in terms of US politics of 50 years ago.

https://www.econlib.org/how-timur-kuran-changed-my-thinking/

Important paper to recommend as always, Soloave’s “ 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy” written after the article but by a thinker who is cited in it.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

And also “Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713

- "I have nothing to hide"

- "they already have all my info anyway"

The problem is that people have not seen it directly. They have not seen that someone used their data against them especially. It is done mostly 'behind the scenes'.

However it is easy to dismantle these thoughts:

- With system of surveillance every politician can be 'under foreign surveillance', which is not a good thought

- There were some cases about somebody not receiving insurance due to surveillance. What if you will not receive social money, or benefits. You may even not know why you were treated by government in certain way

- You do not know if your data were sold, or trained for AI, or for robot dogs, or for war, or to China (Facebook sold data to china)

- Your data can be used against you potentially during your whole life. What if your DM comment might lead to problems with your employment in the future?

- Governments change with times. What if some nasty figure, nazi like, becomes a president of let's say for example America. How you can be sure your data will be treated with care, and that it will not be misused, or used against you?

1. Post all your personal information online is a public place on the internet. This should include all your personal records, your bank accounts, your drivers license, job history. Also include a list of all websites you have visited, the user names and passwords for all online accounts.

2. List the same information for your spouse or partner, children and parents.

3. Take your car keys, house keys, credit cards and such object and leave them in a public place with a note showing where someone can find the information you posted in item #1 and #2.

Congratulations! You have provided conclusive proof that those of us you who protect our privacy are completely silly people. You have won the argument and demonstrated that without a doubt you "have nothing to hide".

Please get back to us in a couple of months and let us know how it is going so we foolish people can join you. [edit: people and join you => people can join you.

The problem is the overlap between those who prioritise it and political nihilism. If you want to have fun, argue with a totem. If you want to be effective, find an argument that will motivate making voting and calling electeds a habit. Particularly those who think both are a farce.

> Because no one is trying to hurt you

From https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-exploding-messages (2018) (discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17357992)

And by "convenience" it doesn't have to be something substantial. Sometimes, it's just that "I'm too busy with my life already so I choose to not think about the privacy implication and wish the odds are in my favor".

Oh and on that note the reason for a warrant is to show YOU that the government has invoked the law IN ADVANCE, it’s not for anyone else but YOU, “no-knock warrants” take a very important aspect of why we require a warrant out of the equation, it’s absurd

Similarly, I think most people don't have much to hide, but when they want their legitimate privacy, they should have all the tools and rights to it.

Ed Snowden

The only way to keep your privacy is to not let those companies have your data in the first place, so in that sense everyone should care about privacy even if they don't inherently do anything wrong in the moment.

Another related quote I like to share is "if you have nothing to hide, then pull down your pants and hand me your unlocked phone."

I think this sums it up perfectly.

The point I want to make is that even if you don't have something to hide today does not mean that you won't be convicted tomorrow.

Edit: Someone else gave an example with the abortions, and that they are now illegal in many places.

And all people have things to hide -especially those who say they have nothing to hide.

These people should be told this in no uncertain terms.

The real issue, I would argue, is that of governments becoming repressive and using force or threats against those who assert their right to free speech and civil disobedience. The first issue does not imply the second and I found that they were often confounded in comments, making it sound like they both go hand in hand.

I don't believe that to be the case. I'd like to think we can have a healthy democracy while living with increasing surveillance.

Let's keep pushing back on governments when they actually infringe on free speech. Like when they start firing people or limiting their rights based on political affiliation or beliefs.

Do we still have curfews or vaccine passports? No, people pushed back. Does the government know who got the shot and who didn't and what their stance is around it? I imagine they do.

* lists gmail address in footer

We should never confuse the two - people seem to think that a right to privacy means a right to secrecy. It does not and never can. People have behaved badly enough with so called online anonymity.

We will have our entire lives stripped bare and laid out on a digital plate - this will enable an incredible outpouring of new lessons, psychological, criminal, mental health and happiness - if we treat it right. If we give individuals control over who can use their information, if we ensure PII is treated like a lawyer treats their clients confessions, that epidemiology can get what advertisers never can, we shall find that it’s not “no-one can ever know” but “health researchers can know, but I would rather my employer does not and I hope my friends understand”

We spend 20 years training children as to what is and is not acceptable in polite society - and it’s going to take a generation to figure this new set of etiquette out - but I am betting the juice is worth the squeeze

Edit: in short, it’s not the data that’s collected, it’s who uses it and how. Focus on that.