If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear(jacquesmattheij.com)
jacquesmattheij.com
If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear
http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide
308 コメント
Something that people in silicon valley just don't get is that that the above argument also applies to tech corporations like Google who collect personal data for living and then say "trust us, we'll do no evil". The industry is upset about Snowden because it cost them sales in China, but for the most part while it talks the talk it doesn't walk the walk.
* If we're going to talk about WWII a good example would be IBM and their role in the holocaust:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
* If we're going to talk about WWII a good example would be IBM and their role in the holocaust:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Regarding his statement: "It doesn’t require much of an imagination to see how this information could be abused."
Rogozov answers: Yes it does! In fact, that is the whole point of the blog entry, and it's completely skipped over. Their was a lot of writing, but the whole point of the article was left as an exercise for the reader. Why be so lazy? There needs to be a set of concrete examples of how these information breeches actually hurt real people. Saying, "their privacy has been violated in a pretty drastic manner leading to death, identity theft or embarrassment" isn't specific enough, and as a reader, I don't buy that the Nazis are going to take over in America someday so they can eradicate all the Jews in the employment of the United States government.
Rogozov believes in his main point -- but we need specific examples that people (who actually vote) can relate to this.
Rogozov believes in his main point -- but we need specific examples that people (who actually vote) can relate to this.
Agree 100% with the point being made here, but the two examples used are also examples of the (large) weaknesses of centralized systems, which is much more abstract, often overlooked, and can be a much greater threat to our well being. A centralized system that everyone depends on will hurt everyone when it fails. A robust, decentralized system limits this exposure.
Something important to note in the OPM data breach: 1.1 million fingerprints were stolen [1], and it would've been a lot more if say this happened 10 years later, and the US, just like Estonia, India and I think a few other countries, started asking their citizens for their fingerprints and stored them in their own databases.
When the governments start telling people "Hey, you already love using your fingerprint on that iPhone of yours - so why not give us your fingerprint, too? We'll make your life so much easier!", forgetting to mention that there's a drastic difference between the iPhone keeping a local "template" of the fingerprint, while the governments are likely keeping the fingerprint data directly and on their own servers - fight it as much as possible.
Remember you only have so many fingerprints, and even fewer of them you'll probably consider "practical" for authentication to devices and whatnot. Don't let companies or governments lure you into asking for your fingerprint and storing it for you on their servers "for your convenience".
[1] - https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/#WhatHappened
When the governments start telling people "Hey, you already love using your fingerprint on that iPhone of yours - so why not give us your fingerprint, too? We'll make your life so much easier!", forgetting to mention that there's a drastic difference between the iPhone keeping a local "template" of the fingerprint, while the governments are likely keeping the fingerprint data directly and on their own servers - fight it as much as possible.
Remember you only have so many fingerprints, and even fewer of them you'll probably consider "practical" for authentication to devices and whatnot. Don't let companies or governments lure you into asking for your fingerprint and storing it for you on their servers "for your convenience".
[1] - https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/#WhatHappened
The beginning the post discusses Nazis and the slaughter of Jews in Amsterdam. Then toward the end, when discussing "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" he fails to mention...
"are you willing to publish your pin code, a high resolution scan of your signature, your passport... Are you ok with your entire family being murdered for their religious affiliation?". If you’re willing to do all of that then congratulations, you really have nothing to hide and the word ‘privacy’ means nothing to you.
Privacy is not just privacy from reasonable people, but unreasonable people as well.
"are you willing to publish your pin code, a high resolution scan of your signature, your passport... Are you ok with your entire family being murdered for their religious affiliation?". If you’re willing to do all of that then congratulations, you really have nothing to hide and the word ‘privacy’ means nothing to you.
Privacy is not just privacy from reasonable people, but unreasonable people as well.
And if you’re not content with living in a world where all of that data is public then you’d better stop repeating that silly mantra ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to fear’...
Serious question: Who's making this argument? I don't hear it articulated by anyone, frankly. I'm sure there are people who hold this position and have argued for it, but are any of them in a position to make policy? Have any of our dozen+ presidential candidates made this claim?
Serious question: Who's making this argument? I don't hear it articulated by anyone, frankly. I'm sure there are people who hold this position and have argued for it, but are any of them in a position to make policy? Have any of our dozen+ presidential candidates made this claim?
I flagged a thread a week or so ago that was an opinion piece about women in tech advocating hiring women. At the end of article the author compiled a huge list of women in tech from github, linkedin and other available resources and linked to it in a spreadsheet.
Leaving aside that hiring a female engineer from google would not add more women into the ecosystem, it is poor form to take a bunch of personal data and use it to compile a list without consent. From memory, the list had full names, position and links to public profiles. This was essentially a massive doxx dump of female engineers.
I assume most of the listed individuals weren't "hiding" their employment position, but this list could be used to target them, spam recruit them, make it appear as if they were shopping employment offers etc.
Leaving aside that hiring a female engineer from google would not add more women into the ecosystem, it is poor form to take a bunch of personal data and use it to compile a list without consent. From memory, the list had full names, position and links to public profiles. This was essentially a massive doxx dump of female engineers.
I assume most of the listed individuals weren't "hiding" their employment position, but this list could be used to target them, spam recruit them, make it appear as if they were shopping employment offers etc.
If you have nothing to hide, sure. But we aren't in an accepting enough world where that's the case for almost anyone. Have you had sex outside of marriage? Smoked marijuana? Are you gay or trans? All of these are things that in many contexts could be used against you, and as such it's pretty reasonable to want to keep those things secret from people you don't know and trust.
Just because you have something to hide doesn't mean you've done something wrong and deserve to have it exposed.
Just because you have something to hide doesn't mean you've done something wrong and deserve to have it exposed.
I'm not sure about cause and effect with logging data and genocides. Ok it made the Nazis job easier in Holland but they killed a lot of people elsewhere. Since those times the amount of data stored on everyone had rocketed and the amount of genocide going on has plummeted - see the graph from Pinker's book - http://i.imgur.com/rFWzUOd.png
That still leaves open the question about what qualifies as worth hiding and what doesn't - who gets to decide that and is that going to be a thing everyone lives by forever or will that be a function of time and other circumstances? (Spectacles - not worth hiding but think of the Pol Pot era and you had to hide them if you wanted to survive.)
This essay doesn't really say anything new (there's literally a Wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument and the religious registry being put to evil use has more or less reached classic status when it comes to discussions of it).
A more interesting essay might analyze the beliefs and attitudes that lead to people agreeing with the statement, and (perhaps) why they are problematic.
(It's actually quite difficult to figure out why people are comfortable saying they have nothing to hide, it's masked by the sea of text explaining they are wrong)
A more interesting essay might analyze the beliefs and attitudes that lead to people agreeing with the statement, and (perhaps) why they are problematic.
(It's actually quite difficult to figure out why people are comfortable saying they have nothing to hide, it's masked by the sea of text explaining they are wrong)
If you are a real freedom fighter you should support the idea of destroying records full stop. There is no actual middle ground. It just needs to go, but of course it is very hard because it is obviously valuable user data.
It sucks and I am not sure what a good man should do.
It sucks and I am not sure what a good man should do.
"If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."
I agreed. Which is why I propose that for the safety of everyone, we station a cop inside everyone's home. After all, you never know when a burglary is gonna happen. With a cop inside everyone's home, you are guarantee safe when a burglary does happen.
Also, just to make sure you don't do anything illegal in the bathroom (like doing drugs), I propose that the cop must also be present with in the bathroom anytime anyone need to use the bathroom. After all, if you got nothing to hide, and you're not doing anything illegal in the bathroom, then you should not fear the cop being in the bathroom with you.
I agreed. Which is why I propose that for the safety of everyone, we station a cop inside everyone's home. After all, you never know when a burglary is gonna happen. With a cop inside everyone's home, you are guarantee safe when a burglary does happen.
Also, just to make sure you don't do anything illegal in the bathroom (like doing drugs), I propose that the cop must also be present with in the bathroom anytime anyone need to use the bathroom. After all, if you got nothing to hide, and you're not doing anything illegal in the bathroom, then you should not fear the cop being in the bathroom with you.
The last part of this sentence has a false premise. You do have plenty to fear, because any government has made errors in their judgments many times before. In fact, any lawsuit brought against GOV that has been won, as well as any won appeal, is indeed a living proof government makes mistakes as well.
Ergo, it is not that I shouldn't have anything to hide because I shouldn't fear the government, it is rather that I fear that the government can misinterpret whatever it is that I'am hiding. (I strongly suggest watching movie "Brasil").
Government, after all, is about masses and implementing rules "for all", not "for individuals". A simple example is me being a long term photographer. I enjoy indoor photos. How the light is formed, aperture used, shots being taken, angles, etc. I browse Anne Geddes photos of almost naked children on secure Tor from a local starbucks on a Wifi dongle that I don't use for anything else (public wifis collect and store MAC data) not because I'm a pedophile (something Gov can assume), but rather because I have no idea how Gov could stretch this information, and I am unsure if I could be financially able to pick up my lawyers tab to get a chance to prove to the judge few months into the lawsuit that I am actually a long-term photographer hobbyist, no some twisted kiddie pron lover.
My second answer to this is a "gimme your password" test. Just few weeks ago I was pulled over in a shady neighborhood because my friend is broke and cannot afford anything better. The cop immediately wanted to search my car. I responded I have nothing to hide here. He replied "well, in this case if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have anything against my search, Sir". To what I reached out for a pen and my notepad, opened it on an empty page and handed it to the police officer. He asked me "what is this?". I said: "kindly please give me your email address and password to it". He didn't laugh but clearly didn't want to get suck in. I quickly added: "I mean after all, if you have nothing to hide in your mailbox, then you shouldn't be concerned of me having access it, do you?". He responded "have a good day" and let me on my way.
Ergo, it is not that I shouldn't have anything to hide because I shouldn't fear the government, it is rather that I fear that the government can misinterpret whatever it is that I'am hiding. (I strongly suggest watching movie "Brasil").
Government, after all, is about masses and implementing rules "for all", not "for individuals". A simple example is me being a long term photographer. I enjoy indoor photos. How the light is formed, aperture used, shots being taken, angles, etc. I browse Anne Geddes photos of almost naked children on secure Tor from a local starbucks on a Wifi dongle that I don't use for anything else (public wifis collect and store MAC data) not because I'm a pedophile (something Gov can assume), but rather because I have no idea how Gov could stretch this information, and I am unsure if I could be financially able to pick up my lawyers tab to get a chance to prove to the judge few months into the lawsuit that I am actually a long-term photographer hobbyist, no some twisted kiddie pron lover.
My second answer to this is a "gimme your password" test. Just few weeks ago I was pulled over in a shady neighborhood because my friend is broke and cannot afford anything better. The cop immediately wanted to search my car. I responded I have nothing to hide here. He replied "well, in this case if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have anything against my search, Sir". To what I reached out for a pen and my notepad, opened it on an empty page and handed it to the police officer. He asked me "what is this?". I said: "kindly please give me your email address and password to it". He didn't laugh but clearly didn't want to get suck in. I quickly added: "I mean after all, if you have nothing to hide in your mailbox, then you shouldn't be concerned of me having access it, do you?". He responded "have a good day" and let me on my way.
Sure, the Chinese have got the info, but could they sell it to American companies? Might a US employer be interested in that dataset? How much might they be willing to pay?
Could I set up a Private Investigation firm and charge $10/file for access? Would an American pay to see their ex-husband/ex-wife's polygraph results? I could even take payment in Bitcoin.
I think the television news emphasizes the possibility of identity theft & espionage but discounts the likelihood of this data making its way back to the US.
Could I set up a Private Investigation firm and charge $10/file for access? Would an American pay to see their ex-husband/ex-wife's polygraph results? I could even take payment in Bitcoin.
I think the television news emphasizes the possibility of identity theft & espionage but discounts the likelihood of this data making its way back to the US.
All rights are worth fighting for even if they don't affect your life. The reasoning behind this should be pretty clear in that the individual rights tend to help protect the others much like chainmail. Maybe each individual link is not particularly strong but together they can fend off quite an attack but the hole that's left if a single link is compromised is why we should fight for all rights.
A friend of mine once put it this way to some guy that was trying to proclaim that he has nothing to worry about:
> Of course you have something to hide. It's not bad to hide things from others. For instance, do you mind if we talk about your sex life? Heck, can I watch you and your wife next time? Sex is natural, we all do it, there is nothing to hide!"
> Of course you have something to hide. It's not bad to hide things from others. For instance, do you mind if we talk about your sex life? Heck, can I watch you and your wife next time? Sex is natural, we all do it, there is nothing to hide!"
I like that the article mentioned the difference between privacy and secrecy. I've been struggling with that for a while. What is private is secret but what is secret (a secret recipe, for example) is not necessarily private. But in some cases, a secret can be considered private (a secret love affair, for example). I'm confused...
Unrelated, but in the light of all recent data leaks, I was thinking that privacy is just another advantage (business, political, relationship, etc.) If somehow all people's lives, businesses, politicians were completely transparent, there were no need to have privacy to begin with. This is utopical of course, but just a thought.
That is a true statement. Yet privacy is a freedom that must be held onto with white knuckles. Who is to say that tomorrow your private poems about butterflies doesn't associate you with some extremist sect and a tyrannical government wont detain you indefinitely because of it?
Privacy is gone; it's a chimera. Let's focus on building a society where we use openness for the common good instead! E.g. don't let some people still try to hide because they consider themselves "special." Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
In terms of things I want hidden, the first thing that springs to mind is my medical records, which I'd like to keep between me and my doctor(s). My understanding is that, historically, governments and just about everyone have respected that.
And it's the same line of reasoning that opposes a central gun registry.
Let's not forget likes and tweets - whenever an angry pitchfork mob will look for people to hang on the lampposts, victims (including photos and addresses) will be one Facebook Graph search away.
Then why is our government so secretive?
The title alone is misleading. It presupposes that its wrong to have something to hide. I have plenty I'd prefer to be hidden, none of it illegal.
Whats so damned wrong with having things to hide? Discretion used to be a virtue. What happened?
Whats so damned wrong with having things to hide? Discretion used to be a virtue. What happened?
I've got nothing to hide besides:
- my public opinion not in line with US foreign policy
- my genitals to not shock the frigid society
- my wage to keep sure that everybody is happy with his slave money and cannot compare
"I have nothing to hide. You have me to fear."
A person who has nothing to fear is dangerous, and that is then something to hide.
- Edward Snowden