Topic: Privacy? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #6,114
It's as simple as that.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #106,304
Everyone has something to hide.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,305
Are you for public unisex restrooms, where anyone can film, OP?
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,311
@106,304 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
If someone has something to hide, then privacy is an abuse.
@previous (C)
I piss right next to other guys in the bathroom, and I get dressed in locker rooms. It is embarrassing now if you are seen taking a poo, but if everyone did it openly, it wouldn't be weird.
It used to be embarrassing to let a women show her ankles. Now no one even notices a women's ankles, they are the least interesting part of the body.
If someone has something to hide, then privacy is an abuse.
@previous (C)
I piss right next to other guys in the bathroom, and I get dressed in locker rooms. It is embarrassing now if you are seen taking a poo, but if everyone did it openly, it wouldn't be weird.
It used to be embarrassing to let a women show her ankles. Now no one even notices a women's ankles, they are the least interesting part of the body.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,314
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,315
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,316
@106,314 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Specifically?
@previous (C)
There are many aspects of our culture that make innocent things taboo. In time we can learn that there is nothing unique or wrong about any of it.
Specifically?
@previous (C)
There are many aspects of our culture that make innocent things taboo. In time we can learn that there is nothing unique or wrong about any of it.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,318
@previous (A)
I agree, mostly. But I don't think we humans are able to always be consistent in our personality, opinions, and actions. I think that's a large reason for privacy. You and I are after all posting anonymously.
I agree, mostly. But I don't think we humans are able to always be consistent in our personality, opinions, and actions. I think that's a large reason for privacy. You and I are after all posting anonymously.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,319
@106,316 (A)
You mean name something I wouldn't want people to see? Most things. Weird or mundane, my private life is my own.
You mean name something I wouldn't want people to see? Most things. Weird or mundane, my private life is my own.
Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,321
Because information is never abused.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,338
i am not afraid, I just want to be left alone
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,342
I may have nothing to hide, but I don't want anybody else to see it.
If you give up your privacy, you give up your individuality.
And before some faggot mentions Facebook...
If you give up your privacy, you give up your individuality.
And before some faggot mentions Facebook...
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #106,353
Because there are some things that you might want to do in private, that don't harm anyone, that are no one else's business. It could be something you're embarrassed about, or something that might upset people if they knew, but doesn't hurt them in any way if they don't, or just things you're ashamed of but not hurting anyone by keeping it a secret. There could be things that make you feel insecure or could get you made fun of, so you want to keep them private, but you're not hurting anyone by doing so. There are lots of examples of privacy that are not automatically abuse like you assume.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #106,364
But everyone DOES have somwething to hide; it's one of the basic desires that make us human.Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #106,367
Exactly, OP. Now please give me:
Your full name and address
Your cleaning habits
A copy of your birth certificate
Your post history on MC for the past ~3 months
Thanks!
Your full name and address
Your cleaning habits
A copy of your birth certificate
Your post history on MC for the past ~3 months
Thanks!
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #106,368
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
He makes a lot of good points about some things only being awkward because of culture, but I still think there are lots of things we have a right to keep private that wouldn't be considered abuse. Also, even if the reasons are cultural, everyone has a right to have culture.
He makes a lot of good points about some things only being awkward because of culture, but I still think there are lots of things we have a right to keep private that wouldn't be considered abuse. Also, even if the reasons are cultural, everyone has a right to have culture.
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #106,375
No. I don't want everyone knowing what I do every moment of my day. Just having my door open annoys me.
How would you feel in a 1984-esque world?
How would you feel in a 1984-esque world?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,478
@106,342 (F)
> If you give up your privacy, you give up your individuality.
Your individuality is your uniqueness, it's what seperates you from the rest. If people know more about you, that doesn't mean you are less unique, or less of an individual, it just means people know more about who you are.
> If you give up your privacy, you give up your individuality.
Your individuality is your uniqueness, it's what seperates you from the rest. If people know more about you, that doesn't mean you are less unique, or less of an individual, it just means people know more about who you are.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,487
@106,375 (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6)
> How would you feel in a 1984-esque world?
That's an association fallacy. An authoritarian world could have no privacy. So could a utopian world where people didn't need privacy, because "odd" harmless behavior was accepted, and other other behavior was treated better (rehab instead of prison for drugs).
A world lacking privacy doesn't necessarily mean 1984, it could mean many things.
I often see this tie with communism and authoritarianism. I'm not communist myself, but people often think of communists as people who want Maoist authoritarianism.
It's a very common fallacy.
> How would you feel in a 1984-esque world?
That's an association fallacy. An authoritarian world could have no privacy. So could a utopian world where people didn't need privacy, because "odd" harmless behavior was accepted, and other other behavior was treated better (rehab instead of prison for drugs).
A world lacking privacy doesn't necessarily mean 1984, it could mean many things.
I often see this tie with communism and authoritarianism. I'm not communist myself, but people often think of communists as people who want Maoist authoritarianism.
It's a very common fallacy.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,495
@previous (A)
But in a world where there is no privacy, it's very easy for a government to become corrupt. So saying that you could have a utopia with no privacy is kinda like saying you can have a utopia under a dictatorship. It's possible, but not very likely because of how easily abused it is. Mindblast brought that up here @106,321 (Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG)
But in a world where there is no privacy, it's very easy for a government to become corrupt. So saying that you could have a utopia with no privacy is kinda like saying you can have a utopia under a dictatorship. It's possible, but not very likely because of how easily abused it is. Mindblast brought that up here @106,321 (Mindblast !!4IKKtS9GG)
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,500
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,502
Give me privacy or give me death.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,508
I have nothing to hide I just want to be left Alone @106,487 (A)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 16 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,935
@106,495 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> But in a world where there is no privacy, it's very easy for a government to become corrupt.
I disagree, in fact, I think the opposite would happen. Losing privacy isn't just for the citizens, it is also for the government. A transparent government, and one in which government officials cannot hide their finances, makes for a much less corrupt government.
> So saying that you could have a utopia with no privacy is kinda like saying you can have a utopia under a dictatorship.
Except that giving up privacy does not mean dictatorship. We can live in a democratic society, free of tyrants, while still keeping everything out in the open.
> It's possible, but not very likely because of how easily abused it is.
What's to be abused? Can you give me an example of how a loss of privacy could give the government more power?
I don't think giving up privacy will give the government more power, but I do believe transparency would make the government less corrupt.
If our fingerprints, DNA, iris scans, etc. were given to the government, they could not make voodoo dolls and control us. They could tie us to a crime, or to a location, but again- this isn't a problem if you are innocent.
> But in a world where there is no privacy, it's very easy for a government to become corrupt.
I disagree, in fact, I think the opposite would happen. Losing privacy isn't just for the citizens, it is also for the government. A transparent government, and one in which government officials cannot hide their finances, makes for a much less corrupt government.
> So saying that you could have a utopia with no privacy is kinda like saying you can have a utopia under a dictatorship.
Except that giving up privacy does not mean dictatorship. We can live in a democratic society, free of tyrants, while still keeping everything out in the open.
> It's possible, but not very likely because of how easily abused it is.
What's to be abused? Can you give me an example of how a loss of privacy could give the government more power?
I don't think giving up privacy will give the government more power, but I do believe transparency would make the government less corrupt.
If our fingerprints, DNA, iris scans, etc. were given to the government, they could not make voodoo dolls and control us. They could tie us to a crime, or to a location, but again- this isn't a problem if you are innocent.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,942
@previous (A)
> They could tie us to a crime, or to a location, but again- this isn't a problem if you are innocent
Oh, okay. How many people do you think are wrongly convicted of crimes because of the presence of their DNA? Mistakes happen.
> They could tie us to a crime, or to a location, but again- this isn't a problem if you are innocent
Oh, okay. How many people do you think are wrongly convicted of crimes because of the presence of their DNA? Mistakes happen.
Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,943
@106,935 (A)
> Can you give me an example of how a loss of privacy could give the government more power?
So you think a government that knows everything about all its citizens wouldn't be more powerful than current governments? wtf
> Can you give me an example of how a loss of privacy could give the government more power?
So you think a government that knows everything about all its citizens wouldn't be more powerful than current governments? wtf
Anonymous J triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,945
FFS, OP. I'm still waiting on your birth certificate! While you're at it, take multiple pictures of your face, forearms and genitals - thanks!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,950
@106,942 (J)
DNA doesn't lie. If there is a problem with wrongful convictions, it's not about *too much* evidence.
@106,943 (J)
You didn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding the answer here? If it's so obvious, should be easy.
DNA doesn't lie. If there is a problem with wrongful convictions, it's not about *too much* evidence.
@106,943 (J)
You didn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding the answer here? If it's so obvious, should be easy.
Bobby2Sox !!ztPBX/o0I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,964
will everyone whoagrees with OP name their bank account/credit card details andtheir pinnumber please
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,967
@previous (Bobby2Sox !!ztPBX/o0I)
I am not talking about passwords, and credit card numbers. Those are there to prove your identity. If I gave those out, there wouldn't be anything secret I'd be worried about, however it would mean people could steal my money.
However I would be fine with a bill that made all financial transactions public. Why should I care? You could find out what I had for lunch, but that's not a secret anyway.
I am not talking about passwords, and credit card numbers. Those are there to prove your identity. If I gave those out, there wouldn't be anything secret I'd be worried about, however it would mean people could steal my money.
However I would be fine with a bill that made all financial transactions public. Why should I care? You could find out what I had for lunch, but that's not a secret anyway.
Django joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,987
Communism? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It's as simple as that.
I'll keep my privacy, tyvm.
I'll keep my privacy, tyvm.
Trip !!ERmL+7Q2L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,988
Leland !BBbudGf3kM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #106,991
OP raped and killed a boy in 1997.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #107,004
> If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
You don't have curtains and wear clothes then? You'd be happy to reply to this thread with your credit card information?
You don't have curtains and wear clothes then? You'd be happy to reply to this thread with your credit card information?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #107,005
@106,950 (A)
> DNA doesn't lie
I know. But it's not impossible for someone's DNA to turn up at a crimescene, even if they didn't commit the crime. Mistakes are made -- frequently.
> DNA doesn't lie
I know. But it's not impossible for someone's DNA to turn up at a crimescene, even if they didn't commit the crime. Mistakes are made -- frequently.
Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,006
@106,967 (A)
Stop being a bloody hypocrite. Why haven't you posted a picture of yourself, or given us your full name, and other identifying info?
Stop being a bloody hypocrite. Why haven't you posted a picture of yourself, or given us your full name, and other identifying info?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,021
@107,004 (Q)
> You don't have curtains
Any house or apartment will come with them. And they do serve other purposes (letting sunlight in on a good day, and keeping it out for watching TV).
> and wear clothes then?
Clothes keep people warm. On a sunny day it would be nice if I could run around naked, but cultural stigmas (and their manifestation in law) prevent me.
> You'd be happy to reply to this thread with your credit card information?
This came up before. I wouldn't care if someone saw my financial information, how much I made, or where I spent it. However we need a system to authenticate people, and that is what a CCN and PIN is for. Someone could use my number, not just for uncovering my private information (which I don't mind), but for impersonating me (which I do mind.).
Everything you mentioned has a couple aspects to it, more than just privacy.
> You don't have curtains
Any house or apartment will come with them. And they do serve other purposes (letting sunlight in on a good day, and keeping it out for watching TV).
> and wear clothes then?
Clothes keep people warm. On a sunny day it would be nice if I could run around naked, but cultural stigmas (and their manifestation in law) prevent me.
> You'd be happy to reply to this thread with your credit card information?
This came up before. I wouldn't care if someone saw my financial information, how much I made, or where I spent it. However we need a system to authenticate people, and that is what a CCN and PIN is for. Someone could use my number, not just for uncovering my private information (which I don't mind), but for impersonating me (which I do mind.).
Everything you mentioned has a couple aspects to it, more than just privacy.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,023
@107,005 (J)
Well then we have an entirely different problem. It's not the evidence that is the problem, it's what police consider conclusive evidence.
If the police are saying a hair in a room is proof that the owner of the hair is the killer, then the problem isn't DNA at all, it's bad investigating.
Well then we have an entirely different problem. It's not the evidence that is the problem, it's what police consider conclusive evidence.
If the police are saying a hair in a room is proof that the owner of the hair is the killer, then the problem isn't DNA at all, it's bad investigating.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,025
@previous (A)
> If the police are saying a hair in a room is proof that the owner of the hair is the killer, then the problem isn't DNA at all, it's bad investigating.
Sure, but it's not always that simple. You'll never be able to eliminate entirely the possibility of human error.
> If the police are saying a hair in a room is proof that the owner of the hair is the killer, then the problem isn't DNA at all, it's bad investigating.
Sure, but it's not always that simple. You'll never be able to eliminate entirely the possibility of human error.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,029
@previous (J)
Can you give me an example?
The police are going to take a DNA sample, and then compare it to suspects. If the criminal is not a suspect, or there is no way of getting their DNA they can get away with the crime.
DNA has helped solve many, many cases.
It has also help innocent people get out of jail. Before DNA testing many people were falsely imprisoned because of human error and DNA proved them innocent. This happens all the time.
Can you give me an example?
The police are going to take a DNA sample, and then compare it to suspects. If the criminal is not a suspect, or there is no way of getting their DNA they can get away with the crime.
DNA has helped solve many, many cases.
It has also help innocent people get out of jail. Before DNA testing many people were falsely imprisoned because of human error and DNA proved them innocent. This happens all the time.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Django replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,052
@previous (A)
The knowledge that there is a DNA database could be leveraged by criminals, though. Not only could they take greater care to scrub a scene of any DNA evidence, given the foreknowledge that they will be caught if it's in there, but it would be far easier to frame someone. All I would have to do is wear gloves, rubber band my pants and shirt to my ankles and wrists respectively, wear a hat and drop a few hairs at the scene. All of a sudden, the person to whom those hairs belong is a victim of the criminal justice system when he never would have been considered a suspect under normal circumstances, and the criminal has committed the perfect crime; one for which someone else was blamed.
Your idea of ending privacy is as legitimate as implementing a system of true communism or true anarchy. All three ultimately rely on the fact that everyone under the system will be entirely okay with the lifestyles they afford the people as well as the rights they both grant and deny. Under no circumstances, though, will such a consensus ever arise simply due to the diversity of human though. It would be great if we could live in harmony under a system with no privacy rights, just as it would be great if we could live in harmony with a system of communism or anarchy. It all depends on what you prefer, which is exactly the problem with implementing any of them. People cannot create a consensus to live under such radically different circumstances than the ones we live in right now. To suggest it's a good idea to implement any of the aforementioned systems is to ignore the diversity and validity of opinions that people hold. As with communism and anarchy, the destruction of privacy is a pipe dream, and one held by very few individuals. There are very good reasons why privacy laws exists, from protecting medical records (who would want anyone to know about their Hep C or anal warts?) to protecting from illegal search (it's awfully difficult to feel secure in one's home if cops could come in at a whim).
All I ask is that you see the other side of the coin. What to you might be a utopia is to others (me included) an Orwellian dystopia. I'd prefer my government not wipe its ass with the 4th amendment, though I'm sure the police wouldn't mind if you ceded your rights.
The knowledge that there is a DNA database could be leveraged by criminals, though. Not only could they take greater care to scrub a scene of any DNA evidence, given the foreknowledge that they will be caught if it's in there, but it would be far easier to frame someone. All I would have to do is wear gloves, rubber band my pants and shirt to my ankles and wrists respectively, wear a hat and drop a few hairs at the scene. All of a sudden, the person to whom those hairs belong is a victim of the criminal justice system when he never would have been considered a suspect under normal circumstances, and the criminal has committed the perfect crime; one for which someone else was blamed.
Your idea of ending privacy is as legitimate as implementing a system of true communism or true anarchy. All three ultimately rely on the fact that everyone under the system will be entirely okay with the lifestyles they afford the people as well as the rights they both grant and deny. Under no circumstances, though, will such a consensus ever arise simply due to the diversity of human though. It would be great if we could live in harmony under a system with no privacy rights, just as it would be great if we could live in harmony with a system of communism or anarchy. It all depends on what you prefer, which is exactly the problem with implementing any of them. People cannot create a consensus to live under such radically different circumstances than the ones we live in right now. To suggest it's a good idea to implement any of the aforementioned systems is to ignore the diversity and validity of opinions that people hold. As with communism and anarchy, the destruction of privacy is a pipe dream, and one held by very few individuals. There are very good reasons why privacy laws exists, from protecting medical records (who would want anyone to know about their Hep C or anal warts?) to protecting from illegal search (it's awfully difficult to feel secure in one's home if cops could come in at a whim).
All I ask is that you see the other side of the coin. What to you might be a utopia is to others (me included) an Orwellian dystopia. I'd prefer my government not wipe its ass with the 4th amendment, though I'm sure the police wouldn't mind if you ceded your rights.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,060
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,065
Django replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,068
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,070
@previous (Django)
"Yes, it does" is not an argument.
Losing privacy does not have anything to do with losing individuality/uniqueness. If you start telling people your secrets you do not *magically* become an average person. Your personality quirks, and abilities do not *magically* disappear. anything that makes you unique, what makes "you you", is still there.
"Yes, it does" is not an argument.
Losing privacy does not have anything to do with losing individuality/uniqueness. If you start telling people your secrets you do not *magically* become an average person. Your personality quirks, and abilities do not *magically* disappear. anything that makes you unique, what makes "you you", is still there.
Django replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,074
@previous (A)
To the contrary, psychologist Solomon Asch has done extensive research demonstrating the powerful effects of social pressure on behavior, as well as the lack of behavioral change when said behavior becomes private. I believe you're severely underestimating the effect that peer pressure can have on an individual.
But you're missing the point. You seem to only reply to the posts you have answers for, neglecting the points made in 107,052, 106,364, 106,353, among others. If you pick and choose which posts to respond to then how can your argument possibly have merit? All it demonstrates is that you're either unwilling or unable to defend the premise you put forth.
To the contrary, psychologist Solomon Asch has done extensive research demonstrating the powerful effects of social pressure on behavior, as well as the lack of behavioral change when said behavior becomes private. I believe you're severely underestimating the effect that peer pressure can have on an individual.
But you're missing the point. You seem to only reply to the posts you have answers for, neglecting the points made in 107,052, 106,364, 106,353, among others. If you pick and choose which posts to respond to then how can your argument possibly have merit? All it demonstrates is that you're either unwilling or unable to defend the premise you put forth.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,149
The idea that an individual can live in a surveillance society with nothing to fear so long as they have nothing to hide may, on the face of it, appear attractive. For those of us who think of ourselves as 'honest' - we pay our taxes, don't commit murders and are loyal to our partners - why indeed should we fear surveillance?
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (NTHNTF) is a myth that is built on certain false assumptions, and these assumptions are never questioned when it is wheeled out as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out in the face of citizen opposition (commercial organisations rarely try such an approach, since it dooms them to failure from the very beginning). These assumptions include:
Continuity: When a large data gathering exercise is started, the lifespan of the system will almost always be greater than that of its instigators. The most benign and caring government, authority or private company is inevitably subject to a change of management, and if the new executive does not share their moral stance, then data can be reused for very dangerous purposes. Those who provided data believing they had nothing to fear may find that data is misused in the future.
Context: Those who use the NTHNTF argument most commonly use it in the context of government collecting information about individuals. In the information age, the idea of a single entity holding that information does not hold true. The massive pressures to share information within and beyond government mean that information is constantly on the move. Sooner or later, information held by the government will be shared across the government and with the private sector.
Control: Whether through a sharing agreement, aggregation of databases or simply leaving a memory stick in a pub car park, information is always shared sooner or later. Information security professionals always assume a system to be insecure, and plan for when - not if - data is lost or corrupted.
Consistency: The most important issue is that of consistent use of accurate information across all authorities and all individuals.
Let's consider consistency in more detail. When databases work from 100% accurate information; when that information is used in accordance with the original consent purpose; when processes work correctly; when outcomes are as expected for every subject in the database; then, arguably, individuals have nothing to fear. Unfortunately, this is a Utopian state that is never achieved in a real world system. We see numerous examples of this problem:
Take the extreme example of Khalid El-Masri. This German national was kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, tortured and then eventually released when it was realised that his was a case of mistaken identity, and he was not in fact an alleged terrorist with a similar name.
In 2007, junior doctors found their personal information - including sexual orientation - published on the Internet in a web security breach. How many of those individuals were 'outed' as a result of that breach? Those who had kept their orientation secret from their families or colleagues were perfectly at rights to do so, but found it released anyway.
In 2006 a student was wrongfully arrested for stealing mail when a batch of letters were recovered. His fingerprints - which had been taken a year previously when he was accused of criminal damage but released without charge after the real culprit confessed - matched those on some of the letters. After his arrest it was discovered that the letters bearing his fingerprints were posted by him. He was released, and then had to campaign to have his DNA data removed from the National DNA Database.
Time and again individuals have been fired from jobs, or failed to get jobs, because of errors in the Criminal Records Bureau database. They have been stigmatised as criminals, even to the extent of being falsely branded as sex offenders, because of database failings.
This sort of mistake might seem rare, but it is going to become increasingly common. Police cars are being fitted with fingerprint scanners, and it seems to be only a matter of time before they can even check DNA on the spot. Systems will make mistakes, and procedures will go wrong. The victims of the benign database state are those who aren't treated in accordance with the intended rules, but are at the wrong end of breakdowns in data accuracy, procedural rules or system errors. Under a benign government, it's not the intended surveillance that makes victims of innocent people, but the errors.
So why do I fear the idea of a database state, even when I have "nothing to hide"? Well, I do have things to hide. Everyone has things to hide. If I have a serious health concern, I want to be able to consult my GP without worrying my wife. If I'm looking for a new job, there is no reason why I should have to reveal that to my employer. In fact, if even I've committed a serious crime, been convicted, rehabilitated and paid my debt to society, why should I be obliged to reveal that history to my neighbours if I pose no threat to them? Should my friends know if I've got an unauthorised overdraft, or if I've downloaded perfectly legal adult content from the Internet? I've done none of these things, and am in no particular rush to, but I demand the right to privacy if those situations arise.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a myth, a fallacy, a trojan horse wheeled out by those who can't justify their surveillance schemes, databases and privacy invasions. It is an argument that insults intelligent individuals and disregards the reality of building and operating an IT system, a business or even a government. If ever you hear someone at a dinner party crank out this old chestnut, grab your coat, make your apologies, run fast and run far. And as William has said before, I wouldn't want to be stuck at a dinner party next to someone who has nothing to hide - imagine how dull that would be.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" (NTHNTF) is a myth that is built on certain false assumptions, and these assumptions are never questioned when it is wheeled out as an argument to support whatever draconian surveillance measure is being pushed out in the face of citizen opposition (commercial organisations rarely try such an approach, since it dooms them to failure from the very beginning). These assumptions include:
Continuity: When a large data gathering exercise is started, the lifespan of the system will almost always be greater than that of its instigators. The most benign and caring government, authority or private company is inevitably subject to a change of management, and if the new executive does not share their moral stance, then data can be reused for very dangerous purposes. Those who provided data believing they had nothing to fear may find that data is misused in the future.
Context: Those who use the NTHNTF argument most commonly use it in the context of government collecting information about individuals. In the information age, the idea of a single entity holding that information does not hold true. The massive pressures to share information within and beyond government mean that information is constantly on the move. Sooner or later, information held by the government will be shared across the government and with the private sector.
Control: Whether through a sharing agreement, aggregation of databases or simply leaving a memory stick in a pub car park, information is always shared sooner or later. Information security professionals always assume a system to be insecure, and plan for when - not if - data is lost or corrupted.
Consistency: The most important issue is that of consistent use of accurate information across all authorities and all individuals.
Let's consider consistency in more detail. When databases work from 100% accurate information; when that information is used in accordance with the original consent purpose; when processes work correctly; when outcomes are as expected for every subject in the database; then, arguably, individuals have nothing to fear. Unfortunately, this is a Utopian state that is never achieved in a real world system. We see numerous examples of this problem:
Take the extreme example of Khalid El-Masri. This German national was kidnapped, flown to Afghanistan, tortured and then eventually released when it was realised that his was a case of mistaken identity, and he was not in fact an alleged terrorist with a similar name.
In 2007, junior doctors found their personal information - including sexual orientation - published on the Internet in a web security breach. How many of those individuals were 'outed' as a result of that breach? Those who had kept their orientation secret from their families or colleagues were perfectly at rights to do so, but found it released anyway.
In 2006 a student was wrongfully arrested for stealing mail when a batch of letters were recovered. His fingerprints - which had been taken a year previously when he was accused of criminal damage but released without charge after the real culprit confessed - matched those on some of the letters. After his arrest it was discovered that the letters bearing his fingerprints were posted by him. He was released, and then had to campaign to have his DNA data removed from the National DNA Database.
Time and again individuals have been fired from jobs, or failed to get jobs, because of errors in the Criminal Records Bureau database. They have been stigmatised as criminals, even to the extent of being falsely branded as sex offenders, because of database failings.
This sort of mistake might seem rare, but it is going to become increasingly common. Police cars are being fitted with fingerprint scanners, and it seems to be only a matter of time before they can even check DNA on the spot. Systems will make mistakes, and procedures will go wrong. The victims of the benign database state are those who aren't treated in accordance with the intended rules, but are at the wrong end of breakdowns in data accuracy, procedural rules or system errors. Under a benign government, it's not the intended surveillance that makes victims of innocent people, but the errors.
So why do I fear the idea of a database state, even when I have "nothing to hide"? Well, I do have things to hide. Everyone has things to hide. If I have a serious health concern, I want to be able to consult my GP without worrying my wife. If I'm looking for a new job, there is no reason why I should have to reveal that to my employer. In fact, if even I've committed a serious crime, been convicted, rehabilitated and paid my debt to society, why should I be obliged to reveal that history to my neighbours if I pose no threat to them? Should my friends know if I've got an unauthorised overdraft, or if I've downloaded perfectly legal adult content from the Internet? I've done none of these things, and am in no particular rush to, but I demand the right to privacy if those situations arise.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is a myth, a fallacy, a trojan horse wheeled out by those who can't justify their surveillance schemes, databases and privacy invasions. It is an argument that insults intelligent individuals and disregards the reality of building and operating an IT system, a business or even a government. If ever you hear someone at a dinner party crank out this old chestnut, grab your coat, make your apologies, run fast and run far. And as William has said before, I wouldn't want to be stuck at a dinner party next to someone who has nothing to hide - imagine how dull that would be.
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #107,150
> If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
> Anonymous A
Haha, oh wow!
> Anonymous A
Haha, oh wow!
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 6 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #112,167
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #112,250
Privacy is a basic human right and you are entitled to it. Face facts: We are never going to live in a world where people are public about every aspect of their lives. There is no point talking about it.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #112,252
@previous (T)
When people are public about everything, we can renounce our right to privacy. BUT IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN LOL
When people are public about everything, we can renounce our right to privacy. BUT IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN LOL