I know data privacy is important and I know that big corporations like Meta became powerful enough to even manipulate elections using our data.
But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.
So, why should people worry about data privacy even if they have “nothing to hide”?
Ask them to unlock their phone and give it to you. Chances are, you’ll quickly find out they have things they’d like to hide.
I have nudes on my phone. I honestly don’t care if they leak one day, in fact, I have been to nudist beaches and I’m pretty sure there are online pictures of me naked already.
That’s completely different to showing naked pictures of me to colleagues, etc.
But if your photos leak, your colleagues could see them. Someone can blackmail you. Or do that using any other sensitive information.
But then I wouldn’t be showing to them.
My problem is not they seeing me naked. My problem would be showing the photos directly to them. I mean when someone asks for my phone, im always like dont like at my photos, I have nudes, then some close friends have still go to my photos and then I dont care.
Indeed, it’s quite rare to find someone who isn’t concerned about their photos, messages, and other sensitive information potentially being leaked online. Good for you, though I don’t believe it’s representative. Even so, there are potential risks to consider. With the right information, someone could manipulate, blackmail, or coerce you without you even realizing it. Our brains are subject to numerous biases, making us susceptible to subtle manipulations. Knowing your traits and preferences allows one to tailor a persuasive message specifically to you. This strategy can be used to sell you anything, from a mobile phone to a politician. The implications of such tactics are significant, potentially affecting billions of people.
I couldn’t care less if a few photos leaked. Nobody in my community would care, if they did I wouldn’t care about them, and blackmail risk it’s far overblown especially within the context of photos. You are far more likely to be exposed by an angry partner. Being afraid that Google had a rouge dick pic that might leak with thousands of others is absurd.
You’re simplifying the issue down to a set of abstract photos that you claim not to care about, ignoring the broader implications. This tells me that you may not fully understand the complexity of our world, the ease with which you can be manipulated, and the potential consequences of such manipulation. The irony lies in the fact that you are essentially replacing my argument:
Knowing your traits and preferences allows one to tailor a persuasive message specifically to you. This strategy can be used to sell you anything, from a mobile phone to a politician. The implications of such tactics are significant, potentially affecting billions of people.
With your own:
Being afraid that Google had a rouge dick pic that might leak with thousands of others is absurd.
Then declaring it absurd. But in fact, it was your argument, not mine, that you characterized as such :)
👌👍 in just a poor confused boy who really doesn’t understand the datalake and pressing systems he builds.
It never amazes me the ability of privacy advocates to just ignore what people care about and then go on to patronize someone by then just saying they don’t understand.
Given that you completely ignore my arguments and replace my thesis with your, I’m inclined to think that you don’t understand all implications and potential consequences. It’s not like you’ve managed to disprove my point. You simply ignored it.
Moreover, the fact that you don’t care about privacy doesn’t mean that your data can’t be used against you. It can be used, it is being used and it will be used in the future.
👌👍
its really more than just nudes, check this comment here: https://feddit.uk/comment/1062371
One thing I often see is people not understanding the difference between secrecy and privacy. They ask why it matters if you’re not doing anything wrong. A UK government minister actually said “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, and then backpedaled when someone pointed out they were quoting Joseph Goebbels. The analogy I’ve seen is simple: I’m sure you don’t do anything illegal in the shower, but I’m also pretty sure most people would be uncomfortable with a law that required you to have a police officer standing in you bathroom with a video camera to record you showering, just in case.
The other thing is the assumption that any information about you that the government actually has about you will only be used against you if you commit a crime, in which case you’ll deserve it - if you’re not a bad person then it’s fine. This is a double fallacy.
First, we’ve seen that information can be used to do all sorts of things regardless of wrongdoing - if someone knows enough about you, they can use it to manipulate you. I don’t mean blackmail or whatever, although that’s an option. I mean that with a clear enough picture of your preferences and biases and habits, someone can tailor their actions and information to your psychology and make you think whatever they want you to agree with.
Second, it assumes that you won’t ever commit a crime because crimes are bad things and you’re not a bad person. This overlooks the possibility of you being mistakenly accused while innocent, but more importantly it overlooks the possibility that the government will change into something that holds different moral values to yours. Even in the modern world we’ve seen places outlaw abortions, or criminalise homosexuality, or pass laws on what religions you’re allowed to follow. If that happens in your country and you find yourself on the wrong side of whatever arbitrary line they’ve now drawn, you may regret giving them so much information about you - information that lets them identify you, prove that you broke their new rules, and ruin your life in so many ways.
The default principal of any exchange with governments, businesses, or any entity taking your information should be to give as much information as is required for them to perform the operation you’re requesting of them, and no more - and wherever possible to only engage with those entities that you trust to have that information; a trust that they earn by a verified and unbroken track record of ethical and trustworthy behaviour.
This is great, well done.
“But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.”
Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.
If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that’s when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.
It’s simpler actually, despite all the words the state still communicates a certain atmosphere of intimidation. When you submit something to the police, it’s not because you consider it obviously right, it’s because you obey their order.
So despite legalities being different, for privacy people still feel afraid to say that they’d hide something.
It’s a matter of emotion. They are not afraid of you, but they are afraid of police. For some people this means that showing something to you is fine and to police not, for others (the majority) - the opposite. You won’t hurt them, police may.
What if I also don’t worry about these and don’t store my banking information?
So you’re hiding your bank information?
Physically
Yeah cause corporations are going to steal money off my card. I’d have zero issues sharing that data if their water a reason… I regularrly share steam/gamepass password. You people are insane with broken logic.
I feel like the people in this thread saying you should ask for personal details are kind of missing the point of the ‘nothing to hide’ argument. It’s not that they feel they have nothing to hide from everyone, it’s that they feel they have nothing to hide from those with access to their data (governments/corporations). Knowing intimate life details of someone you know personally is very different from knowing intimate life details of some random person you’ll never meet. I would argue something like this instead:
Unless you’re a newborn, everyone in the US has broken thousands of laws in their life. It’s unavoidable. If corporations/the government have records of all that, if people don’t have privacy, the powers that be have the power to put anyone and everyone in prison for the rest of their lives at their discretion.
Even if you’re not worried now, once your data is out there it’s not coming back. You may agree with the policy of government and corporations now, but can you be sure that’ll be the case in ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Who knows how laws and regimes will change, and through all that, they’ll always have power over you.
While this is far more elaborate, I agree it’s the best approach if the other person is willing to have a discussion.
You may sprinkle it with actual examples of what’s happening in China with their point system: not getting bus tickets or loan grants or whatever because you not even mentioned something critical somewhere but are associated with someone how did.
They may say it’s unrealistic but 30 years ago Eastern Germany was the same. They just lacked the tech and needed to recruit regular people as spies.
This is a good point and got me thinking of something that would be a better example. I understand the point that it’s because they don’t really care about some corporation without a face collecting their info, which is different from you who they personally know asking them to unlock their phone and give it to you.
Maybe a good example would be their baby monitor or home camera? Let them know that anyone on the internet can tap into their camera feed because those companies don’t lock them down. Not that anyone is looking at it, but anyone could if they wanted to. Would that be a more convincing argument to ask if they are fine with that since they have nothing to hide?
Finally someone who gets it. Imo, the comments asking those people to hand over bank details and similar stuff can harm the argument. I mean, if someone told me that, I’d just say I do that every time I go to the bank. Or my bank has those details and they’re made up of people like me. It won’t really convince me that privacy is important since most of them probably have never experienced getting their accounts hacked.
they have nothing to hide from those with access to their data (governments/corporations).
That is only a good point until you remind them that the government/corporations aren’t just entities but also consist of people, any of which could end up being their neighbor tomorrow, hold their next job interview, be their next potential tinder match, etc.
Of course the rest of what you wrote is true too, but I really felt the need to point this out.
To give an example: I’m in data science. As part of a contract work I had access to a csv dump of a database of addresses of all people who ordered campaign material for a specific political campaign. I could have easily sated my own curiosity and checked who in my near vacinity is in that list, as well as the exact amounts that they ordered and some other notes about them. Suddenly it wouldn’t just be some corporation anymore but their neighbor.
Those corporations and governements have people employed who can have (and usually do have) access to the data. Intentional or unintentional. So would they still be comfortable knowing that I’m able to lookup their data? That’s what the personal questions are about.
If the government still had personal interactions with a clerk at a desk, would they still be comfortable sharing everything they do now?It’s not unreasonable to answer yes to that first question; that’s why it’s not the most sound argument. I was pretty firmly in the ‘nothing to hide’ camp for a long time because that was the only reason I heard. I really don’t care if some random government office worker knows about all the intimate details about my life. I don’t mind if you know I’ve been having prostate problems, but that’s not something I would tell to someone I know personally.
I meant that when asking those questions, you are familiar with the person you’re speaking with. Indeed, when I ask you those questions the answers would be the same since we (presumably) don’t know eachother.
Ask them for their social security number, mother’s maiden name, favorite pet, favorite teacher, high school mascot. It should start to dawn on them
Ask them for their kids’ social security number, DOB, etc. I’ve done that a couple of times and it always gets a reaction.
People are less concerned about themselves, but generally very protective of their children… and rightfully so.
Saying “I don’t need privacy because I’ve got nothing to hide” is like saying “I don’t need free speech because I’ve got nothing to say”.
I like this simil.
Yet here you are, posting on a website that doesn’t allow absolute free speech.
Data privacy isn’t to protect you from getting caught doing wrong things, it’s to prevent malicious actors from having the information to manipulate you. You don’t want phishers to have access to your life details that security questions ask about, even if each one is nothing to hide. You don’t want scammers to know where you went to school, who your teachers were, and what clubs you were in to build up a convincing backstory for their facade. You don’t want someone who wants to get something out of you to know who is important to you and threaten or impersonate them. It’s not about having something to hide, it’s about hiding personal details from those with malicious intent
You don’t want someone who wants to get something out of you
Every corporation ever
This exactly, and the more victims the scammers can get the more it supports their endeavors.
You may have nothing to hide now but what if your (political) opponents reach a point where they have access to your data and the (political) power to use it? What happens if they don’t like your opinions which (you think) you don’t have to hide now?
My opinions may mostly align with the current general consensus in my country and since I’m not politically active I am rather unlikely to be harmed because of my opinions in the foreseeable future (unless I call someone 1 Pimmel). But there are certain developments that are troubling and there are people who don’t like what I’ve said on the internet (duh). Now, I’m not exactly anyone important and realistically there are far more important targets than me personally. But still, it’s not unthinkable that the things I’ve said (things I’ve looked at on the internet, things I’ve bought, things I’ve like/upvoted) might be used to my detriment if certain people came into a position where they have access to any stored data on me.
This applies regardless of your political leanings. If data exists, no matter how harmless it may seem, there’s always the possibility of people who REALLY don’t like it getting access.
Edward Snowden remarked:
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.
There is a wikipedia article regarding this argument
This is a nice quote, however it misses the goal of the original post.
For example, I fall into the group of people that don’t care about their digital privacy, but I fully support anyone who decides to go invisible on the internet.
I feel like most replies here are missing the point.
The entire premise of the statement is that privacy is about defending your dirty secrets. When people say “nothing to hide” they’re really saying “I’m not going to post about anything I want to hide”, but that still misses the point.
For me it’s the subtle principles of advertising. I don’t want to be advertised to, at all. I certainly don’t want some blog to know what adverts I’m likely to engage with, because that is simply none of their business.
That’s it. If that doesn’t bother some people, that’s entirely fine. I’m a bit weird, and the whole idea of being tracked to figure out what things I might want to buy makes me very grumpy.
I hate ads, with a burning passion, but when I get stuck with one that’s wildly irrelevant to my interests, I know that I’m doing something right. Feels good to be a blank spot on the algorithm.
sometimes i get ads for like maternity stuff or jewelry or cars
i’m a guy with a vasectomy and not enough money for a car
it’s very funny
I am doing a paper on this. Privacy as hiding something shameful is a dated concept, like, before villages were a thing. I haven’t time to develop, but privacy was always a privilege of the rich. Back when people were in villages and technology was word of mouth, rich from the time being were in their castles. Knowing what is on peoples mind is a old form of control, while having the right of privacy is freedom. I am a grad student and I have to develop more on the subject, but it’s not about hiding your porn watchlist, lol. It’s about having control of your own decisions. If you understand how someone thinks, changing and satisfying (or pretending to) is actually pretty easy.
If anyone like Futurama, watch the “Killer App” episode
It’s wrong to be dismissive. Hiding something shameful is now, and will likely always be, a critical element of privacy. I agree that it’s not the whole story (or perhaps even the most important part) but it’s certainly the part that people many people spend the most time thinking about.
You’re not weird ! Quite the contrary, we are on the right path to fight those greedy corporation !! To bad we’re the minority ://!
Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor and government whistleblower, has been credited with the quote “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”. Snowden has argued that privacy is a fundamental right and that without it, individuals cannot have anything for themselves. The “nothing to hide” argument has been used to defend the collection and use of government data beyond surveillance and disclosure, but critics argue that it is inherently paradoxical and that what is hidden is not necessarily relevant. Snowden has also stated that the burden of justification falls on those seeking to infringe upon human rights, and that nobody needs to justify why they “need” a right.
Cite historical examples of seemingly innocuous and public information falling into the wrong hands.
e.g. The Nazis used demographic records (marriages, births, christenings, etc.) in conquered lands to ID Jews and other “undesirables”.
And (if they’re American) when they go “well, MY government wouldn’t do that!” counter with how Meta has already, numerous times, gotten people arrested for talking about getting abortions on Facebook
The US government used Census Bureau information to identify Japanese-Americans.
deleted by creator
The couldn’t the person just cite all the times that hasn’t happened?
I don’t think so. Examples of it happening demonstrate that it can happen. OTHO, examples of it not happening does not demonstrate that it cannot happen.
Just because it has a chance to happen doesn’t mean it’s an inevitability.
Feels like an example of confirmation bias.
I’m not even saying I agree. I think privacy is important. I’m just playing devil’s advocate for the OPs question.
It doesn’t have to be inevitable in order to serve as an example of what can happen when even seemingly innocuous information falls into the wrong hands. It’s happened before, and the consequences were horrifying. It will happen again, particularly if people refuse to learn from the examples of history.
Information is knowledge. Knowledge is power. And power in the wrong hands is dangerous.
That feels like a scapegoat argument. That reduces down to “bad things happen when bad people do bad things.”
You can argue against anything when you say that.
"Dentists should be outlawed because some dentists have abused their clients " Isn’t a fair argument either.
You have to put the risks into context with upsides. Dentists serve a verifiable and vast positive. Can you equate that to sharing personal information?
IMO at least not generally, as a generic statement.
That is not a fair or accurate characterization of what I have been saying.
How could you explain it better for an argument then?
They are appealing to the fallacy that hiding things means bad behavior.
Not true. There are plenty of good reasons to hide things. Social security numbers, income, bank account info, even personal preferences.
Privacy != bad
Maybe you don’t think you have anything to hide today, but what about the future? Millions of women gave their period-tracking apps that kind of personal/private data when Roe was in effect because at the time, states couldn’t use it to prosecute women who miscarry or get abortions. Now that Roe is gone, that data is out there and can’t be recalled.
By the same token, everyone who went out and got a 23-and-me genetic test gave their genomes to private companies who can legally sell that information to insurance companies that can use that information to hike their premiums or terminate their policies if they think your genes predispose you to some expensive-to-treat condition. Also those family trees don’t lie about whose kids are the product of adultery, hahahahaha
You do have things to hide in the sense that they’re nobody else’s business.
Also, some countries have established digital privacy as a right (in particular, EU countries) and that’s not just about protecting your dirty stinky secrets, it’s also about preventing social media being weaponized as political or information warfare vectors based on private information obtained without your consent. (the same profiling used to target relevant commercial ads to you is also usable to target information warfare and propaganda to your susceptible relatives, and they vote in addition to giving racist rants at holiday dinner)
In other words, your privacy is intrinsically valuable- if it wasn’t, exploiting your private information wouldn’t be a multi-billion-dollar industry
A bit more historic, but still very relevant. The FBI used surveillance in repeated attempts to discredit Martin Luther King JR. It’s chilling how they used the information they gathered to try to get rid of MLK any way they could. They were even trying to use information they gathered to convince him to commit suicide.
