
If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear - jacquesm
http://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide
======
dmvaldman
"When you say I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing
to hide, that is no different than saying I don't care about freedom of speech
because I have nothing to say or freedom of the press because I have nothing
to write."

\- Edward Snowden

~~~
at-fates-hands
This is such an odd statement and fundamentally confuses two very different
ideas.

First of all, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution. There
is however, the Bill of Rights which everybody is familiar with. It does
outline protecting _specific aspects_ of privacy which include such things as
the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the 4th Amendment, (privacy of
your possessions against unlawful search and seizure).

The supreme court refuses to protect privacy beyond those issues which are
directly related to the Bill of Rights even though the public believes it is
their right to have a blanket type of protection against congressional
overreach.

To hear Snowden confuse these things by lumping rights protected under the
Constitution with a broad reaching idea of the public's right of privacy
(which is does not have), and then equating them is puzzling.

~~~
spdustin
I expect the fourth amendment to be a growing factor in SCOTUS cases related
to privacy - at the time of inception, a person's self, house, papers and
effects were tangible things - the idea that the other "digital effects" we
all have in our "digital houses" didn't exist.

I think the argument that an email would be a "paper" under the fourth
amendment is going to be the first test. I know that sort of thing has been
challenged (users should've have an expectation of privacy, etc.) but it's my
belief that the argument "users have no expectation of privacy when it comes
to emails" is a misdirection. Our citizens have rights whether or not they
expect those rights to be respected by those in power.

~~~
ams6110
I would read "papers" as different from email. Papers I interpret as personal
records: journals, financial records, etc. Email, tweets, Facebook postings,
etc. are already by default shared with at least one other person or unknown
other persons so there's an implicit reduced notion of privacy.

I agree with the larger point that information on digital devices should
properly be considered "papers" or "effects" even if stored in something
nebulous such as "the cloud." As long as there's no deliberate or implicit
sharing of these things, "the cloud" should be considered as private as a desk
drawer.

~~~
kwhitefoot
Financial records are also shared with others. And my correspondence with
another person is also private whether achieved via paper and envelope or by
email or instant message.

------
michaelpinto
Something that people in silicon valley just don't get is that that the above
argument also applies to tech corporations like Google who collect personal
data for living and then say "trust us, we'll do no evil". The industry is
upset about Snowden because it cost them sales in China, but for the most part
while it talks the talk it doesn't walk the walk.

* If we're going to talk about WWII a good example would be IBM and their role in the holocaust:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust)

~~~
chestnut-tree
_"...tech corporations like Google who collect personal data for living"_

I agree. The largest and potentially most-revealing information about you is
captured by technology companies like Google and Facebook.

The Amsterdam registry recorded _" Name, Date of birth, Address, Marital
Status, Parents, Profession, Religion, Previous Addresses and Date of Death"_

Create a Google account and you are asked to provide: Name, Gender, Date of
birth, Location, Mobile phone number.

This is some of your most private and personal information and it's tied to
your actual behaviour on the web. Google's ability to track you across the web
and across devices is simply unprecedented.

Google omits basic facts in their privacy policy about the data they collect
about you. Things like: how long they keep your data (presumably forever),
whether the data is anonymised, whether your searches or activity are
disassociated from your identity, and who sees your data inside the company.

Does Google use your mobile number solely for two-factor authentication and
absolutely nothing else? Google doesn't tell you. Do they really need your
date-of-birth? And is it only used for age verification? Could they simply ask
if you're 16 or over? Sure they could, but date of birth tied to your online
activity is so much more valuable when it comes to crunching all that big data
on user behaviour.

The amount of information that Google captures about you is gargantuan. They
know more about your online (and possibly offline) behaviour than you know
about yourself. Just to be clear, I don't believe Google does anything
nefarious with your data. But even if you trust them, why is it considered
perfectly acceptable for them to track you to such a relentless degree?

~~~
rhaps0dy
And imagine if they get pwned. Not fun.

~~~
ams6110
I think the working assumption should be that they have been. There is no way
that a company that big is not leaking like a sieve. Between social
engineering, disgruntled employees, and active intrusion, they is no way that
have remained unpenetrated.

------
rogozov
Regarding his statement: "It doesn’t require much of an imagination to see how
this information could be abused." Rogozov answers: Yes it does! In fact, that
is the whole point of the blog entry, and it's completely skipped over. Their
was a lot of writing, but the whole point of the article was left as an
exercise for the reader. Why be so lazy? There needs to be a set of concrete
examples of how these information breeches actually hurt real people. Saying,
"their privacy has been violated in a pretty drastic manner leading to death,
identity theft or embarrassment" isn't specific enough, and as a reader, I
don't buy that the Nazis are going to take over in America someday so they can
eradicate all the Jews in the employment of the United States government.

Rogozov believes in his main point -- but we need specific examples that
people (who actually vote) can relate to this.

------
bsbechtel
Agree 100% with the point being made here, but the two examples used are also
examples of the (large) weaknesses of centralized systems, which is much more
abstract, often overlooked, and can be a much greater threat to our well
being. A centralized system that everyone depends on will hurt everyone when
it fails. A robust, decentralized system limits this exposure.

~~~
stretchwithme
Very true.

A single electrical grid certainly is. I'd prefer to see local co-operatives
buying utilities from competing networks. The co-ops would own the last mile
and could pick the combination of technology, price and robustness that suits
them. And when one fails, they hook up to a competitor.

If Japan had had that arrangement, instead of having to bail out the utility
monopoly that failed to prevent the Fukushima disaster, they could have just
let it go bankrupt and spent only what it took to clean up the mess. And that
distinct possibility might have helped prevent the disaster to begin with.
They might have figured out how to move the pumps high enough above, for
example. Or made provisions to bring in new pumps by helicopter.

A disciplined standing army is more vulnerable too, in some situations, than
highly decentralized forces. If you can get the leaders to surrender, that's
it. But those pesky insurgents never give up.

And then there's the French Navy, whose leaders refused to send them out to
sea when the Nazis were invading. Churchill ending up destroying it so it
wouldn't fall into enemy hands. Those ships could have been used to help the
evacuation and then fight the Nazis at sea.

Centralization is becoming a problem in disaster relief now too.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/us/nationalspecial/after-f...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/us/nationalspecial/after-
failures-government-officials-play-blame-game.html)

------
higherpurpose
Something important to note in the OPM data breach: 1.1 million fingerprints
were stolen [1], and it would've been a lot more if say this happened 10 years
later, and the US, just like Estonia, India and I think a few other countries,
started asking their citizens for their fingerprints and stored them in their
own databases.

When the governments start telling people "Hey, you already love using your
fingerprint on that iPhone of yours - so why not give us your fingerprint,
too? We'll make your life so much easier!", _forgetting_ to mention that
there's a drastic difference between the iPhone keeping a _local_ "template"
of the fingerprint, while the governments are likely keeping the fingerprint
data directly and on their own servers - fight it as much as possible.

Remember you only have so many fingerprints, and even fewer of them you'll
probably consider "practical" for authentication to devices and whatnot. Don't
let companies or governments lure you into asking for your fingerprint and
storing it for you on their servers "for your convenience".

[1] -
[https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/#WhatHappened](https://www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/#WhatHappened)

~~~
noir_lord
Biometrics are fundamentally flawed as they can't be revoked.

I've never understood why people feel they are a good solution, my bank gave
me a little card gizmo, I put my code in it generates a cryptographically
secure response.

If it's stolen or lost I just ring them up and they invalidate it.

------
datashovel
The beginning the post discusses Nazis and the slaughter of Jews in Amsterdam.
Then toward the end, when discussing "if you have nothing to hide you have
nothing to fear" he fails to mention...

"are you willing to publish your pin code, a high resolution scan of your
signature, your passport... Are you ok with your entire family being murdered
for their religious affiliation?". If you’re willing to do all of that then
congratulations, you really have nothing to hide and the word ‘privacy’ means
nothing to you.

Privacy is not just privacy from reasonable people, but unreasonable people as
well.

------
twoodfin
_And if you’re not content with living in a world where all of that data is
public then you’d better stop repeating that silly mantra ‘if you’ve got
nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to fear’..._

Serious question: Who's making this argument? I don't hear it articulated by
anyone, frankly. I'm sure there are people who hold this position and have
argued for it, but are any of them in a position to make policy? Have any of
our dozen+ presidential candidates made this claim?

~~~
steve_mcqueen
Google CEO (at the time) Eric Schmidt:

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't
be doing it in the first place."

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-
schmid...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-
dismisses-privacy)

Senator Trent Lott:

"What are people worried about? What is the problem?" asked Lott, a former
majority leader. "Are you doing something you're not supposed to?"

[http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/bellsouth.nsa/](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/bellsouth.nsa/)

Senator Lindsay Graham

"I don’t think you're talking to the terrorists. I know you're not. I know I'm
not, so we don't have anything to worry about..."

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/lindsey-graham-
nsa_...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/lindsey-graham-
nsa_n_3396223.html)

~~~
maxerickson
Schmidt wasn't making a strong argument against privacy, he was discussing the
relationship between using an online search engine and privacy. He was asked
_People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?_

And responded with your quote, and a bit more. The context is harder to
ridicule:

 _I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don 't want anyone
to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. But if you really
need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including
Google, do retain this information for some time. And it's important, for
example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It
is possible that information could be made available to the authorities._

~~~
dayaz36
The context is easier to ridicule. He says it in explicit terms: Don't search
for something you wouldn't want authorities to know about because we just may
hand it over to them.

~~~
shawndumas
The reality is that what you do online is subject to seizure, exposure, and
retaliation.

Knowing that reality helps people act accordingly.

I don't normally ridicule people for being forthright about reality.

------
vonklaus
I flagged a thread a week or so ago that was an opinion piece about women in
tech advocating hiring women. At the end of article the author compiled a huge
list of women in tech from github, linkedin and other available resources and
linked to it in a spreadsheet.

Leaving aside that hiring a female engineer from google would not add more
women into the ecosystem, it is poor form to take a bunch of personal data and
use it to compile a list without consent. From memory, the list had full
names, position and links to public profiles. This was essentially a massive
doxx dump of female engineers.

I assume most of the listed individuals weren't "hiding" their employment
position, but this list could be used to target them, spam recruit them, make
it appear as if they were shopping employment offers etc.

------
copsarebastards
If you have nothing to hide, sure. But we aren't in an accepting enough world
where that's the case for almost anyone. Have you had sex outside of marriage?
Smoked marijuana? Are you gay or trans? All of these are things that in many
contexts could be used against you, and as such it's pretty reasonable to want
to keep those things secret from people you don't know and trust.

Just because you have something to hide doesn't mean you've done something
wrong and deserve to have it exposed.

------
tim333
I'm not sure about cause and effect with logging data and genocides. Ok it
made the Nazis job easier in Holland but they killed a lot of people
elsewhere. Since those times the amount of data stored on everyone had
rocketed and the amount of genocide going on has plummeted - see the graph
from Pinker's book -
[http://i.imgur.com/rFWzUOd.png](http://i.imgur.com/rFWzUOd.png)

~~~
Matt3o12_
Are you kidding me? Of course, they found jews people in all the invaded
countries and Germany, but they had a harder time finding jewish people. In
the Netherlands, they basically knew who were jewish, and if the data had not
been destroyed, 100% of the jewish people have had died because of it. Without
the data, some people had the chance to escape or hide their true identify
(there are plenty of jewish who could convince law officers that they were in
fact not jewish). With that information, they had absolutely no chance

~~~
tim333
My point was that the data was not the cause of the genocide. If you look at
modern genocides eg. Rwanda a few years ago or Southern Sudan as we speak they
are mostly characterised by a lack of internet connectivity or data about
people. The places where everyone is on Facebook and G+ are not where they
happen. Indeed in the Sudan case if there was a lack of privacy about who
exactly had slaughtered who's family I suspect it would make the perpetrators
much less likely to do it.

~~~
brandon272
No one said the data was the cause of the genocide.

------
blinkingled
That still leaves open the question about what qualifies as worth hiding and
what doesn't - who gets to decide that and is that going to be a thing
everyone lives by forever or will that be a function of time and other
circumstances? (Spectacles - not worth hiding but think of the Pol Pot era and
you had to hide them if you wanted to survive.)

------
maxerickson
This essay doesn't really say anything new (there's literally a Wikipedia
article on the topic:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument)
and the religious registry being put to evil use has more or less reached
classic status when it comes to discussions of it).

A more interesting essay might analyze the beliefs and attitudes that lead to
people agreeing with the statement, and (perhaps) why they are problematic.

(It's actually quite difficult to figure out why people are comfortable saying
they have nothing to hide, it's masked by the sea of text explaining they are
wrong)

------
xyzzy123
If you are a real freedom fighter you should support the idea of destroying
records full stop. There is no actual middle ground. It just needs to go, but
of course it is very hard because it is obviously valuable user data.

It sucks and I am not sure what a good man should do.

------
thelastguy
"If you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."

I agreed. Which is why I propose that for the safety of everyone, we station a
cop inside everyone's home. After all, you never know when a burglary is gonna
happen. With a cop inside everyone's home, you are guarantee safe when a
burglary does happen.

Also, just to make sure you don't do anything illegal in the bathroom (like
doing drugs), I propose that the cop must also be present with in the bathroom
anytime anyone need to use the bathroom. After all, if you got nothing to
hide, and you're not doing anything illegal in the bathroom, then you should
not fear the cop being in the bathroom with you.

------
joering2
The last part of this sentence has a false premise. You do have plenty to
fear, because any government has made errors in their judgments many times
before. In fact, any lawsuit brought against GOV that has been won, as well as
any won appeal, is indeed a living proof government makes mistakes as well.

Ergo, it is not that I shouldn't have anything to hide because I shouldn't
fear the government, it is rather that I fear that the government can
misinterpret whatever it is that I'am _hiding_. (I strongly suggest watching
movie "Brasil").

Government, after all, is about masses and implementing rules "for all", not
"for individuals". A simple example is me being a long term photographer. I
enjoy indoor photos. How the light is formed, aperture used, shots being
taken, angles, etc. I browse Anne Geddes photos of almost naked children on
secure Tor from a local starbucks on a Wifi dongle that I don't use for
anything else (public wifis collect and store MAC data) not because I'm a
pedophile (something Gov can assume), but rather because I have no idea how
Gov could stretch this information, and I am unsure if I could be financially
able to pick up my lawyers tab to get a chance to prove to the judge few
months into the lawsuit that I am actually a long-term photographer hobbyist,
no some twisted kiddie pron lover.

My second answer to this is a "gimme your password" test. Just few weeks ago I
was pulled over in a shady neighborhood because my friend is broke and cannot
afford anything better. The cop immediately wanted to search my car. I
responded I have nothing to hide here. He replied "well, in this case if you
have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have anything against my search,
Sir". To what I reached out for a pen and my notepad, opened it on an empty
page and handed it to the police officer. He asked me "what is this?". I said:
"kindly please give me your email address and password to it". He didn't laugh
but clearly didn't want to get suck in. I quickly added: "I mean after all, if
you have nothing to hide in your mailbox, then you shouldn't be concerned of
me having access it, do you?". He responded "have a good day" and let me on my
way.

------
arh68
Sure, the Chinese have got the info, but could they sell it to American
companies? Might a US employer be interested in that dataset? How much might
they be willing to pay?

Could I set up a Private Investigation firm and charge $10/file for access?
Would an American pay to see their ex-husband/ex-wife's polygraph results? I
could even take payment in Bitcoin.

I think the television news emphasizes the possibility of identity theft &
espionage but discounts the likelihood of this data making its way back to the
US.

~~~
charonn0
I think the major security concern is over blackmail, considering the stolen
data concerned people with US government security clearances.

~~~
sgs1370
Yes, blackmail is probably the primary concern. But anyone who has your SSN,
DOB, employment history, and every address you've lived at... they can
convince banks, cc companies, etc., that they are you, because those phone
calls usually involve questions about where you've lived and worked.

------
Evolved
All rights are worth fighting for even if they don't affect your life. The
reasoning behind this should be pretty clear in that the individual rights
tend to help protect the others much like chainmail. Maybe each individual
link is not particularly strong but together they can fend off quite an attack
but the hole that's left if a single link is compromised is why we should
fight for all rights.

------
jbrooksuk
A friend of mine once put it this way to some guy that was trying to proclaim
that he has nothing to worry about:

> Of course you have something to hide. It's not bad to hide things from
> others. For instance, do you mind if we talk about your sex life? Heck, can
> I watch you and your wife next time? Sex is natural, we all do it, there is
> nothing to hide!"

~~~
dimino
This is a terrible argument, mostly because it _allows_ for the persecution of
minorities. "You're a filthy commie?!? Isn't that something you want to
hide!?!"

Freedom of speech (the human right, not the legal right) should allow you to
have as many harebrained ideas as you'd like, and be as vocal as you'd like.
You _should_ be able to talk about your sex life, and you _should_ be allowed
to let other people watch you have sex (which you are, on both counts -- your
friends examples kind of suck).

------
melipone
I like that the article mentioned the difference between privacy and secrecy.
I've been struggling with that for a while. What is private is secret but what
is secret (a secret recipe, for example) is not necessarily private. But in
some cases, a secret can be considered private (a secret love affair, for
example). I'm confused...

------
hippich
Unrelated, but in the light of all recent data leaks, I was thinking that
privacy is just another advantage (business, political, relationship, etc.) If
somehow all people's lives, businesses, politicians were completely
transparent, there were no need to have privacy to begin with. This is
utopical of course, but just a thought.

------
markman
That is a true statement. Yet privacy is a freedom that must be held onto with
white knuckles. Who is to say that tomorrow your private poems about
butterflies doesn't associate you with some extremist sect and a tyrannical
government wont detain you indefinitely because of it?

------
jwatte
Privacy is gone; it's a chimera. Let's focus on building a society where we
use openness for the common good instead! E.g. don't let some people still try
to hide because they consider themselves "special." Sunlight is the best
disinfectant.

~~~
tariqali34
I agree. If governments can't protect their private information from being
leaked by hackers and whistleblowers, what hope do the average person have?
Adapt to changing circumstances rather than hold onto outdated concepts.

------
Chattered
In terms of things I want hidden, the first thing that springs to mind is my
medical records, which I'd like to keep between me and my doctor(s). My
understanding is that, historically, governments and just about everyone have
respected that.

~~~
ams6110
You might want to read more history.

~~~
Chattered
I'm thinking of this line from the Hippocratic Oath, which I understand to be
quite historical:

"Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not
invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to
repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast."

The point is that this isn't being challenged in the latest privacy wars, even
though it flies straight in the face of the completely nonsense mantra of "if
you've nothing to hide...."

------
caseysoftware
And it's the same line of reasoning that opposes a central gun registry.

~~~
doomrobo
The open question that the article didn't touch upon (probably because it's
much more complicated) is where to draw the line between what is and isn't the
government's business. There are many who don't buy into the "nothing to hide"
argument and would nonetheless advocate for the use of a central gun registry.
It's not mutually exclusive, it's just a matter of where a person draws their
line of privacy. I'd imagine that libertarians are on the far "nothing is
anybody's business" end of the spectrum.

~~~
caseysoftware
That's one of many "it doesn't apply to me, so it doesn't matter" scenarios.

As the OPM "hack" has demonstrated, the government has no interest and little
culpability in protecting the vital and dangerous information it has
collected. If it shows this much disregard for the important information, how
much less protection will they apply to the unimportant things?

* I hate calling it a "hack" since it's been determined that OPM _gave_ them access to everything. I covered that over three weeks ago too: [http://caseysoftware.com/blog/opm-background-check-hack-a-di...](http://caseysoftware.com/blog/opm-background-check-hack-a-different-angle)

------
tomaskafka
Let's not forget likes and tweets - whenever an angry pitchfork mob will look
for people to hang on the lampposts, victims (including photos and addresses)
will be one Facebook Graph search away.

------
CyberDildonics
Then why is our government so secretive?

------
alan_cx
The title alone is misleading. It presupposes that its wrong to have something
to hide. I have plenty I'd prefer to be hidden, none of it illegal.

Whats so damned wrong with having things to hide? Discretion used to be a
virtue. What happened?

~~~
bbcbasic
The title is intentional. I dare say it is designed to stir things up and get
you to read the article. Did you read it?

------
kungfooman
I've got nothing to hide besides: \- my public opinion not in line with US
foreign policy \- my genitals to not shock the frigid society \- my wage to
keep sure that everybody is happy with his slave money and cannot compare

------
spiritplumber
"I have nothing to hide. You have me to fear."

------
tzs
A person who has nothing to fear is dangerous, and that is then something to
hide.

------
amelius
Anybody who says this, is probably not a friend you can trust with a secret.

------
aarongray
Very timely words.

------
MCRed
GAYS

====

In the time after WWI, Germany was a relatively liberal country in some
respects. The salon society was popular in Berlin and Gays and Lesbians were
able to live their lives in relative freedom- not the freedom we have now in
the USA, but not the level of persecution they would experience elsewhere.
There were magazines that catered specifically to this population as well as
private clubs for them to congregate.

Of course these organizations were then easily used by the Nazis to find all
of the gays and lesbians in germany...

One thing that makes me really angry about most popular accounts of that
regime is the convenient forgetting that Gays and Lesbians were part of the
holocaust and were very likely to be straight up slaughtered rather than sent
to camps. And while there were fewer gays killed than jews (smaller part of
the population) there are other groups as well that are often forgotten... in
fact I can only think of the Roma. Shouldn't we all know all the groups the
Nazis systematically murdered?

GUNS

====

The important operational part of this is that the data was collected at a
time when it seemed innocent and then the regime changed and the data was used
to kill people. The nazis are, of course, a very extreme example, but regimes
change all the time. For instance, a persecuted group in the USA right now are
gun owners. (Yes, I know that guns are used wrongly, over 30 years nearly 600
people have been killed in mass shootings-- of course that doesn't compare to
the 10,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers.)

Increasingly, one of the tactics used to go after gun owners is
"registration". After all, if you're law abiding, why should you fear
registering your guns? There is a massive program right now that causes "FBI
Background Checks" for every gun purchase--and by this nature this is
registration of firearms and firearms owners.

GERMS

=====

So maybe you hate guns and gun owners so you see nothing wrong with keeping
track of them. The thing is, when you live long enough (Say into your 40s) you
start to see how attitudes change. Some for the better-- gays are less
persecuted now, and I'm grateful for that (being not exactly heterosexual
myself). But you also see other groups being persecuted. This starts out
seemingly innocently enough. Lets take Muslims. They have been linked to real
crimes and that has been used to smear a whole group. (There are other groups
getting the same treatment right now- gamers, men, christians, etc.)

The germ, which becomes an infection and spreads, is thinking that because a
person of type X committed a crime (A jew in germany charged too much? a boy
at college committed rape? a muslim killed people in a terrorist act?) ...
that the whole group can be painted with the brush of prejudice.

That prejudice becomes systematic and eventually it can become oppression.
Often it becomes the situation where those who think they are oppressed
justify oppressing others because they claim their victims are oppressing
them. (You see this now with the more extreme elements of feminism. No, not
all men are rapists! Really. Some of them are gay!)

This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany where the county had been
victimized by the treaty that ended WWII and humiliated and felt widespread
victimhood.

So, beware of victimhood being used to justify prejudice!

That's one lesson people don't seem to learn from this era-- its the mechanism
by which a peaceful, tolerant society (as germany had) becomes fascist.

After all, germans are not genetically predisposed to fascism, any more than
americans are.

~~~
MCRed
This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for
thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the
holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he
mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm
guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where
substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunition to a substantial
discussion. IF HN is a filter bubble, where only politically correct
perspectives are tolerated, then my post will fade into nothingness as I am
silenced for the crime of critical thinking. Why should I invest time in a
community if only certain thoughts are tolerated by that community?

Oh, and this whole idea of "thought crime" is a mechanism by which prejudice
is fostered and spread-- you saw it in Germany, Orwell wrote about it. We have
it in action here in the USA... and on this site.

Surely you know where this will lead. In fact, anecdotally it already looks
like this site has lost %80 of its participation... it used to be you needed
hundreds of uproots to get to the front page, now only 10 will do it.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men,
Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the
implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you
claim to oppose.

~~~
classicsnoot
Why does persecution have to reach epic proportions before it becomes safe to
acknowledge it?

~~~
Squarel
To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the
US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing
different opinions to me".

Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on
individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married
for example) this is not persecuting a group.

To imply so is disingenuous.

~~~
classicsnoot
First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to
"persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered. Instead,
you both thigh-slap about how silly it is for Christians to feel persecuted.
My question still stands.

Secondly, I am no Christian. Indeed, I personally feel that religious beliefs
of any flavor are a mental illness.

Thirdly, I am agun owner. I advocate the ownership of guns as a check/balance
on the central government. I accept the gun deaths that accompany ownership
(accidents, suicide, murders) as I believe the benefit far out ways the cost.
I believe this because of what I have seen in countries where there are severe
limitations on personal gun ownership. For me it comes down to this: when
weapons enter the equation, you are either a Player or you are Furniture. I
choose to be a Player.

Fourth and finally, I believe in complete free speech, no exceptions, and as
such I in no way wish to limit you, or any person's expression. Still, any
time people choose to scoff instead of respond, I can't help but feel they
need to return to their seat and pay better attention in class before raising
their hands.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
_First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to
"persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered._

I did below.

------
stretchwithme
Well said, Jacques.

------
CHY872
I could swear that I've read this exact article before...

------
ExploitsforFun
Great argument for privacy. A someday hostile government cannot use
information it doesn't have

------
frenchies
>The fuss is that even if you have absolutely nothing to hide the ‘privacy is
dead’ crowd seems to miss out on the fact that privacy by itself is considered
important enough to make it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 12

Ive seen this mentioned twice now.

When did `a piece of paper says X` become a leading argument?

------
detcader
Everybody already understands that those who claim to "have nothing to hide"
are always those found in some intersection of sets representing those
arbitrarily constructed classes of people which were invented and exist to
extract resources from all those outside of the set. We have set in stone the
history of Jews in Europe as containing the premise of "yes they were
definitely outside of the class at the time" but that's about the only
admission in the world of any sort of thing like that which has been
universally adopted in any region.

The processes of resource extraction in which Class Men and Class White have
been and are engaged in is obvious from the historical record. But the
incentive is to just work around the possibility of asserting this as a
premise to any degree, so you don't get screamed at or worse. The form and
content of much of the thinkpieces you've read has been modified by these kind
of incentives. Yet many seem to sincerely believe that everything they read is
an honest translation of the author's deepest thoughts, feelings, and beliefs
into human language, when in reality most writers on topics like this are, to
some degree, scared or cowardly.

~~~
redwood
I've read it a few times but am not sure I follow what you're saying. Is this
high context writing? If so what is the background?

~~~
nitrogen
I think it's saying "Insiders exploit outsiders. Only insiders say they have
nothing to hide."

~~~
redwood
Excellent translation. And your comment is a lesson in the value of brevity
and clarity!

