The most common argument used in defense of mass surveillance is ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’. Try saying that to women in the US states where abortion has suddenly become illegal. Say it to investigative journalists in authoritarian countries. Saying ‘I have nothing to hide’ means you stop caring about anyone fighting for their freedom. And one day, you might be one of them.
I have nothing to hide
Ok, pull down your pants and hand me your unlocked phone.
The ‘hand me your unlocked phone’ has worked for me on several occasions.
To me they just say ‘I have stuff to hide from you, not from Google, Facebook, or the government.’
“And the government officials can sell this data to me. Relatively inexpensive too”.
Guys, stop falling for the obvious bait in the comments.
This applies to so many things. Someone’s lifestyle might come under attack, someone’s religion might be persecuted, someone has sensitive information to share, and so on and so forth.
deleted by creator
I don’t know where I read it but the best defence to “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is “I don’t have anything to hide but I don’t trust your judgment or intentions”
There is a inversion of sorts here that is also important. If some people have access to the information hidden to everyone else they have power and control. Allowing just a few to read everything everyone else does gives them undo power. The access law enforcement has can and it abused, it is also sold or stolen.
Abortion should be illegal because it violates the UDHR. Other than that true.
do you live your whole life this confidently incorrect every day?
Calling someone’s opinion “incorrect” shows the true nature of you and the people you represent.
Lol the fact that you think someone presenting a different opinion means they represent anyone is silly, stop perpetuating the politics = sports teams mentality
Abortion should be illegal because it violates the UDHR.
This is an (unsubstantiated) allegation of fact, not an opinion.
I agree because someone told me that the law was edited but the person who replied clearly said “opinion”, not “information”. I do believe that was a sign of toxicity and not just laziness or English issue. As a proof, my own psychological researches confirm that people from similar communities tend to exhibit increased irritability, toxicity and desire of creating exclusive communities.
Where did they say opinion, I don’t see an edit on their comment.
Huh did I reply to a wrong comment then? I’m pretty sure there was “opinion” in it.
That was not an opinion
Then they should’ve used a different word. “Incorrect opinion” is what only a toxic person would say.
Can you just take a second to reflect on how inelegantly you have taken being wrong? You made an incorrect assertion of a fact, just accept you made a mistake and move on. Being stubborn and defensive makes you look kind of immature.
Hope you can take this advice
I did admit my mistake but instead of looking at it, you just decided to falsely accuse me…
Yes you admitted your mistake. And yes you still acted a bit foolish. That’s not a false accusation, it’s just an accusation.
(THIS is an example of an opinion)
Um, pretty sure that is very not correct. https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/
This information is pretty new. I didn’t know there was the edit.
It’s from 2018. Sounds like what you don’t know could fill a warehouse.
Nobody can ever know even remotely everything. It’s physically impossible. I’m not a lawyer so it’s not even my main sphere of interest.
You’re right, nobody can ever know even remotely everything.
Luckily, the same device you used to post that comment can also be used to check if what you are about to say is actually true, so you can prevent yourself from spreading misinformation like this in the future.
Further proof that what is illegal or not is volatile.
10.31.2018
What is the 31st month? Modulo 12 would make it July.
10th July 2021. Gotcha.
Yes ik. My sources were from 2019 or so but I guess they had some outdating issues at that time already.
I don’t think that’s relevant but still curious to know where you think in the Universal Declaration of human rights or in the Déclaration des droits de l’Homme de du citoyen it forbids abortion
I’m not French and idk French laws. I was talking about the US.
What are you even saying? You were talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is NOT a US text. And it is based on the Declaration from France from 1789.
Anyway, the UDHR says that humans are born equal in rights, and that individuals have the right to live. It’s a good question to wonder what is considered an individual indeed. For example, the US law defines an individual as a human being who was born alive
It is not a US text but it is accepted to work in the US afaik and I’m quite sure of it. Another person told me that the declaration was edited in 2018 to include the right of abortion. I didn’t know about that and I, in contrary to most people in this discussion, am not afraid to admit it and therefore that I was wrong.
Alright then. Good for you
I don’t think you know US laws either
Did I ever claim to?
Upvoting for admitting you were wrong in your edit.
I wish more of the internet acted that way.
I’m all for privacy, but I’m not all for using the comment section to talk about abortion rights. Sure there is some overlap, but the comment section here seems to show the ease of which the human psyche can get distracted, these tangential bickerings are the reason big data is so effortlessly steam rolling us.
Easy: “You, the government, want me to show you all my data? Right after you show me (and everyone else) all your documents, including the “top secret” ones. Because you haven’t done anything wrong, right?”
Symmetrical transparency.
I tried arguing against this, but it’s no use. I tried pointing out how something can be branded illegal retroactively, like 20 years down the line, I tried the “give me your credit card info” approach, nothing took. 90% of the time the counter-argument is usually something to the effect of “big companies know everything about me anyway”, which is just guessing on their part.
I’m just going to take care of my own privacy, because I’m clearly in the minority (present company excluded, of course). Almost everyone I know disregards online privacy completely, so I’m done trying to get a dialogue going with these people; it’s every man for himself. The only way online privacy will become a hot topic among laymen is when something nasty happens and at that point, it will have been too late.
Thank you very much for speaking my mind!
I would also add that the “Plandemic” WAS that nasty thing that started other nasty things happening AND still few acknowledge what you are very well talking about.
IT is not only about being able to exercise the freedom of speech, privacy or living and loving, IT IS about HUMANS and HUMANITY and those that are against it…
REAL EYES, REALISE, REAL LIES! ☝️
“plandemic” opinion discarded
As Doctorow points out, ‘Saying security and privacy don’t matter because you have nothing to hide is like saying freedom of speech doesn’t mater because you have nothing to say.’
It’s a very short-sighted view. Those rights will be taken from you if you don’t protect them.
That doesn’t work for the “the big companies know everything about me anyway” line though
They may know everything about you right now. But they don’t know about your future self, how you can change, how you may be an entirely different person in as little as a year. Data is useful, but it is more useful the more updated and recent it is.
Well I think it does, because they don’t know literally everything about us yet. But they will one day if we don’t fight back.
You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter what you or I believe, if a person has accepted that a big corporation knows everything about them and use this as a reason not to take action or prevent them from knowing more, then the Doctorow quote doesn’t apply.
“I don’t have anything to hide because I think I’ve done something wrong: I have something to hide because question your judgement and motives.”
They’re fine giving you their info because they trust you. The problem is when the person seeking that information is untrustworthy – and some shithead(s) making their way into a company or government isn’t just possible, it’s likely.
Tell them to give all their sensitive personal information to someone that hates them. Credit card numbers, political beliefs, nudes, sexual preferences/fetishes, etc.
my personal response is ALWAYS “would you be fine living with a state mandated police officer, FBI agent, CIA agent, whatever, in your house 24/7 making sure you never did anything wrong?”
the answer is no, because obviously it’s no.
Finally a friend
a fren that will report all your wrong doings to big government!
Just tell them unlock their phone so you can take a look of his browser history. Works quite a few time for me.
At one time I did, and to my surprise, my friend did just that! Unlocked their phone and handed it to me without a word. Welp.
Yeah, that’s when you fuck with them. Make them regret doing that. Make a point they will never forget. Lol
Nah, that would just make me a dick.
So you logged into all their social media and changed their passwords and recovery emails right? I don’t just want access now, I want it in perpetuity.
“I don’t trust you!” But they trust whatever NSA-agent looking at their private photos not to save anything for later…
investigative journalists in authoritarian countries
You mean like the US? Who achieved the feat of persecuting a foreign journalist as if he were an American citizen?
EDIT: I know that Mullvad is also critical of american surveillance, but I find it very funny that when in the West they call a state democratic that does exactly the same (or worse) than a state in the East that they call “authoritarian”. It really reveals how empty of meaning this word is. “Ah, but these Western states have ‘democratic institutions’.” News for you: the states you call “authoritarian” have them too. In both cases, they can be and de facto are dictatorships.
Also: never give your government the authority over something you wouldn’t give the worst possible government.
It’s not that I have something to hide, it’s that I don’t trust your judgment
It’s not that I have something to hide. It’s that it’s none of your business!
There is so many good responses to this. Here is one I just came up with:
Legal and not embarrassing are not the same thing.
Saying you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you don’t have anything to say.
It was Edward Snowden who said that “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.”
“i have nothing to hide”
no, you are wrong, you just do not understand what other people know about you.
And how they might use that information against you, now or in the future.
or yesterday, maybe a week ago, who knows when it will come back to haunt you!
Nor that the information that they use against you be necessarily true given their accepted monopoly in ‘truth’.
ah yes another classic, although this would be a timeless issue regardless of privacy, manufacturing problems is really easy, it turns out.
- Women hide thier skin, lips, and age
- Men hide thier jawline with beards and their insecurities are buried so well, they forget it themselves as a defense mechanism hoping the mental/emotional weakness will “heal” by next confrontation
- Humans hide thier weakness,
- Thier competitive business plans
- Patents until they are published
- Who are you falling in love with at the start
- Exactly how much you are attracted to a person
- Who you have a crush on
- Your answer to a $10,000 competition
- Your lottery ticket
- The location of your gold and gun
- The location of your child when allowed online
- Whether someone is away from home for extended periods of time, you leave the lights and TV on.
- Inventions until it’s marketed
- Science Fair Project until it’s unvield
- Presents until they are opened
- Your private parts
- Your private thoughts on your marriage
Have you ever grabbed a childs private parts? NO of course not, because you INNATELY UNDERSTAND even though you are not a parent and don’t remember being one yourself. In fact you understand it so well that if you were to do so publcally, you’re putting your life at risk.
CONCLUSION: They want access to your weaknesses and privates.
EVIDENCE: Privacy Violation is a specific tactic meant to break people …IN PRISON…since they begining of time, Gulags.
P.S. Stop showing nude baby pictures that is a serious privacy violation. In fact, just don’t take the picture, where did you even get that you lazy lubricated louse.
I agree with the first part of your comment, I don’t understand the second. Some sort of pedophilophobic rant?
Not too sure about the middle part, but the end was pointing out that baby pictures of little Sally playing in the tub are not okay to share or take in the first place.
Its a common enough situation where Ma is going through the baby album with your bride-to-be or a total stranger (mother-in-law) and there’s a bunch of photos of under-dressed children that would definetny make the wrong crowd happy to have.
Children deserve privacy like the rest of us do.
Fun fact: Most parents cannot hear/see this sentence.
