I know it's very confusing to a lot of people, but USA stands for United States of America. It's also the only country in the world that has America in its name.
All of the below examples aside, why not? Why should your wanting to hide something be any more sinister than what you want for dinner? And if you yourself don't have anything to hide, awesome. Is it not worth protecting my right to hide things should I want or need to?
There are many reasons to desire privacy other than wanting or needing to hide something. The existence of this site does not invalidate those. But one great technique, when someone holds a rhetorical gun to your head, is to just reach up and pluck out the bullets, reclaiming and sanitizing the opposition argument. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." "Guess what, I do have things to hide, and that shouldn't get stigmatized."
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." "Guess what, I do have things to hide, and that shouldn't get stigmatized."
The argument isn't about hiding things, it's about the right to privacy. The right exists whether you have something to hide or not or whether you like to swim or anything else that irrelevant.
And if you don't "have anything to hide" your right doesn't automagically go away.
I disagree with the phrasing -- it shouldn't be about what you want to hide, it should be about what you want to show. I always go back to the same argument: if you're OK with the government recording absolutely everything, does that include the bedroom? The bathroom? I'm not doing anything illegal in there, but it's definitely not something I'd be OK with sharing with the world at large.
I firmly disagree. Hiding things is a hack; the actual solution is to change society such that exposure entails no significant consequences.
Sure, as a band-aid to make existing real people feel secure? Hiding things and keeping them hidden is fine. It's just an indicator of how far we as a society still have to go.
Do remember: "it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy" is the exact argument used by the government against things like Wikileaks. The exact argument.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. So are you saying if we were a further advanced society people could have sex a crowded bus or restaurant and we should just all accept it and not expect them to get some privacy?
I'm not suggesting anyone should be ashamed of sex. I am suggesting that most people want that moment to be private and even those that around them want them to keep it private as well.
"Do remember: "it's our responsibility to hide things to support freedom and democracy" is the exact argument used by the government against things like Wikileaks. The exact argument."
The government does not have the right to privacy, we do. And exercising that right is well doing something we have the right to do.
It is the response to the argument that "If you don't have something to hide, you shouldn't mind having your rights trampled on" with the attendant presumption that anyone with something to hide must be a criminal or a T7t.
I understand that we're in an individualistic society, and that personal concerns are more effective at driving behavior than societal concerns, but as the responses here show that many people equate hiding with guilt we might as well address both :)
Third parties are happy to extract value from data you share. Even if you’re not doing anything wrong, controlling that information has an impact. The way I see it, saying “I have something to hide” is, WLOG, the same as saying “I want to control what gets shared with whom.”
EDIT: If the site author is reading this, tip #6 misspells ‘diaspora’ as ‘dispoara’.
I hear this response often to the "i have nothing to hide" camp. Feels to me like we would have something better to say. Pointing to one thing most clearly wish to hide is just not a good comparison with the digital breadcrumbs we throw around. They dont compare.
We have all come to accept that some people are able to know when you walk down the street past their store, if they wish. The bus driving is free to mentally note when you get off and on the bus.
Telling people to wear masks when walking outside because our daily routine is as equally private as our sex lives, just does not equate. At times I feel this line of argument belittles everyone and their opinions in debate.
OK. Supposedly,I have no expectation of privacy when I am out in public. Certainly, anyone could see me go into a particular store. That is not the same as following me around everywhere and noting down everything I am doing. Most people would call that stalking. So what if I have nothing to hide? It is still creepy and inappropriate. This is my main objection to widespread surveillance cameras and an analogous argument applies to my online activity.
You are arguing for a world that might benefit you, will definitely benefit intelligence creepers, and would be considered by most human beings undesirable and downright hostile. Expect resistance.
Exactly. The phrase 'something to hide' has become synonymous with 'something illegal' or 'you're doing something wrong', when in reality everyone has things they simply wish to keep private.
'I have something to keep private' isn't as punchy. Also it doesn't go far enough. 'My entire life is private' is closer. Of course my public interactions aren't AS private; but still largely private (its nobody's business what laundry detergent I buy at the public supermarket).
I wasn't talking about the title of the article, but in general. Those in support of these surveillance programs have worked hard to conflate 'something to hide' with 'something illegal' so that most people will go along with them as they have 'nothing illegal to hide.'
With programs and ideas like these ( http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article201702.ece ) there is a permanent log of everything. I'm tempted to think that companies are hoarding all possible data to be mined so they'd look more appealing for revenue from the government.
I think it's yet another reason not to use anything on the Internet without some sort of alternative vpn network.
no matter how many times I read this, I'm always slightly caught off guard. The image many people seem to engender of fb is one of a public service -- ie they only "see" their friends on fb, not some abstract CEO.
With that reasoning, it makes sense that people pour so much blind faith into the Web site as they do -- they simply do not see a corporate structure to their giant online playground.
I expect Facebook to archive my profile and everything I've ever posted there or publicly. I don't really expect them to archive my private chat and not give me a way to delete it.
Even if you delete a photo from an album, Facebook doesn't get rid of it immediately. I know this because I was able to retrieve a photo that I'd seen in someone's album, a day after it had been removed from that album, by retrieving the image url in my browser history.
I know it was public record, but my main problem is that having it archived from 10 years ago is ridiculous. I'm sure many people have entered info into their WhoIs information they don't want publicly available before they really knew what it was really used for.
The possibility of negative experiences is the danger of a Patron event too. It's easier for one person to ruin an "exclusive" event with only 9 other people, more likely to generate whining from people that have missed out and easier for the grumpy person to be the only one that actually has a blog. People arbitrarily selected for a hugely lavish "exclusive" event are strangely more likely to object to being treated as a glorified photo opportunity, delays and not liking one of the dishes on the 5* menu than people lured into a moderately exclusive nightspot by the promise of entertainment and selected free drinks if they and their friends can stomach the queues.
You can make more compelling YouTube videos of your branded live music event too.
The reality is that it all ultimately depends on whether you're trying for mass appeal or exclusivity.
So you're saying you would purposely invite fewer people to an event (even if that means a much higher cost per participant) in order to minimize negative reviews? That doesn't make very much sense to me.
HBO needs to make all their shows available online for a fee. Just imagine how many monthly subscribers they would have, if they could provide access to all their shows.
