'People who want privacy have something to hide.'

[ph0b0s123]

It's a dumb argument and I've only heard it once.

Another example from 2009, someone who has a blase attitude to privacy

Schmidt (Google CEO) said, appearing on CNBC ... "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

From:http://blogs.computerworld.com/15234/google_ceo_if_you_want_privacy_do_you_have_something_to_hide

 

[dyre]

Eh, sure, I've got stuff to hide. I wouldn't want my parents knowing about some stuff, nor my friends about some other stuff. Most people have embarrassing secrets, or at least secrets they would prefer not to have announced to everyone. Most of those secrets have nothing to do with breaking the law.

So yes, I have some things to hide, and I demand the right to hide them.

 

[Cpu46]

I am against this in principle. Privacy should be something everyone gets. However if someone did look into my stuff they would be horribly bored... except for maybe an hour or so every week when I go to less family friendly sites.

 

[ChaoticKraus]

What about really embarassing fetishes? Or really controversial opinions? Or they simply like to indulge in something semi-legal? I'm not buying the whole "nothing to hide" stuff.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

It's called privacy for a reason. It's privet.

I don't care whatever they have to say, I don't want anyone to look over my shoulder all the time.

I have nothing to hide.
I simply don't want to give up on something that I have. I don't care what the reason is.
And there is always the chance of those information being abused. Look at the problem with the PSN and anon. Do you really think that the security of all those information would be safe?

That argument is dumb and anyone using it should be burned like "witches" in middle age.


Also, "something to hide" isn't equal to "something illegal".
I don't want people to connect my online identity to my real life identity. My country is mostly conservative and having different opinion than the majority is usually the fastest way to ruin your social life (or that little that I have).

Just supporting gay rights openly can bring you trouble, being gay is dangerous. Playing games or watching anime once you're older than 10 means something is really wrong with you.

That's just some of the reasons why I want my privacy.
And being able to have 2 identities without them interfering or doing any harm to anyone is a great. Why would anyone clear in their mind choose to give up on something like that.

And once the government is 100% open about EVERYTHING they do, I will accept being 100% open to them. Until then, they don't have any right to ask me to give up on my privacy.

 

[RatRace123]

Yeah I've heard that argument too, it's friggin' stupid. People who want privacy likely want it just because they don't fancy the government knowing exactly what they do or say at any given time... like say, me.

But y'know what, I'll play ball. Once the government starts being completely and 100% open about all the messed up shit they do, then we can talk about doing the same on the internet.

 

[hubert]

Edit

 

[Agayek]

Here's the way I see it:

There's absolutely no reason for anyone to care when John Q Public knows literally everything about them. If you have skeletons in your closet, then the solution is simple: don't do shit you're ashamed of someone finding out about. One should never be ashamed of their choices, and you should be ready, willing, and able to defend every choice you've ever made.

Now with that said, those who want to monitor other people can go fuck right off. In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." It is never acceptable (doubly so for the government) to monitor something that someone did not explicitly and knowingly make public. Anyone who supports or suggests any type of legislation supporting monitoring what people do in private needs to be strung up by their testicles (or ovaries as the case may be) and left to rot.

 

[Kargathia]

Can we please make it mandatory for anyone who proposes this to have everything they do recorded 24 hours a day? I'd wager it'd get the point across.

That, and it'd reveal an amusing amount of sexual fetishes and embarrassing morning rituals.

 

[hubert]

Edit

 

[NiPah]

In both Europe and the US at the moment there are efforts to get ISP's to record absolutely everything everyone does on-line (Reported here [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/28/details_of_all_internet_traffic_should_be_logged_says_mep/],here [http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/27/hawaiis-proposed-online-tracking-law-comes-under-fire-from-isps/] and here [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/]). From websites visited, to emails sent and comments left for example here and other places. There is also the technology available now to track almost everyone when not on-line via CCTV cameras and GPS in cars.

Now the reason used for all this being needed by legislators, is to protect people. Either from child abusers on-line, to terrorists outside your homes.

Now whenever any reservations are brought about this, the usual response seems to be only people who have something to hide should be worried about all this extra 'monitoring'.

What do people here think? Should we be monitored on mass without any thought to probable cause as with targeted monitoring (i.e wiretaps, etc). And is the argument that only people who have something to hide want privacy, a good one?

Edit: Forgot to also ask, do people think the Internet laws above are good if they are going to reduce, to some amount, child abuse etc. Or is it peoples view that the invasion of privacy outweighs the theoretical benefits? Or are child abusers and terrorists just bogey men that legislators use to try to get through things people would not allow otherwise.

Hello, I'm the guy on the other side of the glass, I watch everything you do and take note of it. You though I was a professional, my resume checked out and all of my made up sources were never checked because really, what government agency has time to spare to actually check into the credibility of every worker? I'm watching what your kid is playing, I'm checking to see when your daughter goes to school or is hanging out with friends through her Facebook account, or maybe I'm selling off your bank information to my friend in Spain. I have lots of power since I work for the local police, and due to lack of oversight my deeds will go on for a long time, and its pretty easy since the tools were handed to me in the name of keeping you safe...

The government and our police system is made up of a bunch of humans, little people like you and I who are easily swayed by power and personal gain, you are not handing your privacy to some perfect emotionless robot, you're handing your privacy to Steve the creepy IT guy in the police force who has a pain pill addiction and a window into everything you do.

Remember, the terrorists who we're trying to guard against are just as smart if not smarter then Steve, they worked for 5 years in the IT company in India that designed the software you are required to use to sign onto the internet, they got the job at the government agency that runs the background checks for the other agencies, if you think that the government will protect you from them then too bad, the Saudi interest lobby group has urged your congress or prime minister to pass bill 109-2 which requires the use of a very buggy firewall program to be used in all the airport security terminals.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The argument that only those with something to hide want privacy is fundamentally flawed, though those that are hiding something do want privacy. Some rectangles are squares, all squares... etc...

However, PCIPA really isn't as bad as everyone is cooking it up to be (they are basically forcing ISPs to do something they may already do and that they can already force them to do as part of an investigation). The ACLU opposes it just because they seem to oppose any and all laws related to expansion of monitoring by police, but that is unimportant. Also, the site the OP linked to about the bill is talking about how it forces the ISPs to record their customer's bank accounts and what not, when the bill is only related to IP addresses. The ignorance people have about this bill and the scare tactics being used to oppose it are baffling. The house bill hardly mentions ISPs for chrissakes.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Here's the way I see it:

There's absolutely no reason for anyone to care when John Q Public knows literally everything about them. If you have skeletons in your closet, then the solution is simple: don't do shit you're ashamed of someone finding out about. One should never be ashamed of their choices, and you should be ready, willing, and able to defend every choice you've ever made.

And why do I believe that you can't live up to that ideal one bit?

The validity of an argument has nothing to do with the character of the individual making it. I don't agree with their argument, but I hate your counter.

 

[Agayek]

And why do I believe that you can't live up to that ideal one bit?

I have not made a single choice in my life that I would be ashamed for a random stranger to know. I've made a few choices I regretted, but, at the time, they were the best choices I could make, and as such I feel no shame with random strangers knowing about it.

Off the top of my head: 1) in high school I peeked over a lock toilet stall to make sure it was empty, since in my previous school people got in the habit of locking the things then crawling out underneath them for some reason. 2) I stole a stopwatch as a kid because it was shiny. 3) I missed out on almost all the socializing in college because I chose not to attend some parties early one due to my father having passed away (rather poorly at that) less than a month before classes started.

There's probably a bunch more if I spent some time to think about it, but there you go.

The point of my post wasn't that you shouldn't feel regret or make mistakes, simply that you should accept your choices and have the confidence in yourself and your judgment to defend them, instead of feeling ashamed by them.

If you ever make a choice that you are later ashamed of, you are doing life wrong.

 

[Sporky111]

One of a politician's most important jobs is to make people feel good about what they're losing, whether it's rights or freedoms or money or anything. Making people feel patriotic about the things they're giving up is one of the easiest methods, I'd say. And of course, comparing or associating something with child pornographers will make ANYTHING look tempting.

Maybe when the government and all the people working there start being 100% transparent will I consider letting them invade my privacy without a search warrant.

 

[Senare]

Who will these extra measures serve? The ones who wish to control the people or the people themselves?

Is it right for a goverment to hold secrets if no one else is allowed to? Can you trust that this information will not be abused? Will it make it easier for a corrupt goverment to rule or will it make it harder?

For example, if I were privy to that information (through a corrupt system) I could decide that my respectable coorporation should not have employees who thinks x and y, or who has sexual orientation z.
Or let us say that me and my friends have a political opinion which is frowned upon in our country. The system could then serve to nip our little movement in the bud.
What if organized crime infiltrate whatever agency is supposed to monitor this information?
I could make sure that any whistleblower in my organization is caught and punished.

I believe that people should be free to express their thoughts in private or distribute them anonymously even if those thoughts are not liked.
Anvilicious.

 

[Sandytimeman]

Benjermain Franklin pretty much already owned this for me "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

lets be honest the people who engage in child porn, they arn't hurting kids so they can make money or anything like that. They are hurting these kids because they have a sick desire too. The porn is just incidental.

Also, this is just another power that will be added to the growing pile, just because you think you can trust someone with power doesn't mean you should give it to them. The next person that comes to take their place may not be so trustworthy with it.

 

[willsham45]

Yes we have things to hide that is why we wear cloths.

The idea is with the internet you reaveal what you want. If I want people to know my name and where i live that is my choice. Anything I do not show is private. When in reality everything you do online and more if some of the scarier articals supposidly say is true.

If you ever hear that sentence you do not have to worry if you got nothing to hide then in the same respect surly we should have access to everything that person says or does.
If it is a goverment offical we should have access to know everything about him or her, from the food they eat to the times they go to the loo.

Although through all these things I do wander what would happen if i start acting "suspishiously" online and start sending e-mails to my mate on doing "terroristy" things...although i probally wount and if police do knock on my door declaring they could not know any of this without tapping my e-mails and declaring they need a warrant for it and maybe a bit of pre crimb what the hellary is probally not going to do anything to help.