
Bruce Schneier: The response to the "If you've got nothing to hide" argument  - smanek
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886
======
pg
I remember once hearing that a privacy advocate had replied to that argument
from a politician with "Senator, when you make love to your wife, do you kiss
her breasts?"

~~~
derefr
If _everyone_ could find out such knowledge about _everyone else_ on a whim,
would people stop being so paranoid about the question, and all others like
it?

I see privacy as just a way to protect oneself in light of an unequal balance
of informational power. If this imbalance were corrected--if everyone
instantly knew everything and anything they wanted to know--a form of
mutually-assured destruction would ensure continued politeness, or as the
author put it, "dignity and respect." We would simply stop caring about such
things--gossip is a non-issue when everyone (metaphorically, mind) lives
together naked in a brightly-lit room, and speaks in sweeping motions and loud
voices.

In a privacy-less world, the senator would simply reply "yes" or "no," but the
question wouldn't have been asked in the first place, as it wouldn't be
especially inflammatory--anyone could know all they wanted about anyone else's
sexual habits, and so it wouldn't be at all interesting, or even at all
intimate (once the novelty wore off, of course.)

~~~
earthboundkid
Such a world will never be allowed to come to exist as long as there are
powerful men who want to cheat on their wives.

------
nazgulnarsil
he contradicts himself, but there are still some excellent points. I actually
think that "the government gets to define what's wrong" is a better argument
than an "intrinsic" right argument. Ayn Rand may not be too popular around
here but I think this applies: _There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when
there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to
be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?
But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor
objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers._

~~~
a-priori
Just curious: Why do you say that Ayn Rand may not be popular around here?

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Ayn Rand makes some salient points, but they were hardly original, even in her
time. Rand took classic liberalism to its extreme, not realizing that all
political systems are compromises between liberty and social power (or
collectivism, or democracy, or mob rule or whatever you want to call it).
Modern libertarianism is not too popular for good reason: most libertarians
assume that if you get rid of government everything will be better, ignoring
the fact that human societies have never gone without governments for long.
Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety,
otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live. The argument
is over how much. Both anarcho-capitalism and utilitarians represent the
extreme ranges of the political scale and are clearly unworkable: no one wants
unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety with no
freedom.

~~~
byrneseyeview
_most libertarians assume that if you get rid of government everything will be
better, ignoring the fact that human societies have never gone without
governments for long._

Wait, really? You think it just _never occurred to libertarians_ to wonder
what would happen if their philosophy were implemented?

 _Almost everyone wants to give up some measure of their freedom for safety,
otherwise we would all think Somalia was a great place to live._

Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of
these freedom-for-safety exchanges? And are you deliberately confusing
anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored) with Objectivism (which calls for
governments to maintain police and the military)?

 _no one wants unlimited freedom with no safety, no one wants unlimited safety
with no freedom._

You're still acting as if it is obvious and intuitive that if someone wants
something, they want the government to provide it. I think it might be
illuminating to replace the government with some other entity, like, say, IBM
or the local library, e.g. "Everyone knows we need to provide for people in
their old age. That's why I think IBM should take some of my money every time
I get paid, and give it to old people." This sounds absurd, of course, but it
does bring up the question of why one should automatically assume that a
monopolistic government is the only entity that can do certain tasks -- that
we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
_You think it just never occurred to libertarians to wonder what would happen
if their philosophy were implemented?_

I'm not talking about reason, I'm talking about historical precedent. Many
theories about how a anarchistic system can maintain stasis but none of them
have real life examples.

 _Why are you assuming that there should be a single monopolistic provider of
these freedom-for-safety exchanges?_

the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition
isn't as efficient as a monopoly is. And I think you're confusing my
definition of government. The government is whatever entity has a legal right
to exercise force over some population. If that is the library, then the
library is the government. In a real life capitalist republic, government
competition turns into the two party system we have now, where each side is
nominally for pushing the social contract farther left or right.

 _And are you deliberately confusing anarcho-capitalism (which Rand abhored)
with Objectivism (which calls for governments to maintain police and the
military)?_

I agree with this aspect of Objectivism, the government's role is to provide
for the security of economic exchange (enforcement of contracts, military
security, courts).

 _that we should give that stuff up in a no-bid contract without question._

The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any
reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and
effective government?

~~~
byrneseyeview
_I'm talking about historical precedent_

If you're talking about history, are you talking about how powerful central
governments are worth all those millions of brutal murders? So far,
corporations have killed far fewer people than governments have, and when
corporations do kill, it's generally with the help of the state. Not an
indictment of the moral character of statists, just how things work when you
monopolize force.

 _the problem is that when it comes to the application of force, competition
isn't as efficient as a monopoly is._

That sounds wildly unlikely. What is special about force that makes it
different? And even if force is different, is it worth the cost -- the
government that starts out by providing defense and law enforcement
relentlessly expands into moralistic regulation, redistributive taxation, and
intrusive snooping into citizens' lives. The most successful non-revolutionary
conservative movements succeed in slowing this down, temporarily.

 _The question to me is not a moral one but an engineering one. Is there any
reasonable path from where we are now to a responsible, efficient and
effective government?_

Likewise. But if we're talking about engineering good outcomes, the thing to
look at his how to engineer the state away, not how to engineer around the
problems that afflict all states.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to. Give
them the legal ability to kill people and they will (your example actually
supports this, it's when the corporations collude with the government and have
a chance of getting away with murder that they do).

you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am pro government. I'm
not. Bad government is responsible for more death than every other problem
that faces humans. But I'm also a realist, as you say even the most successful
of revolutions has only ever slowed government down. If I had my way the
politicians would be dragged from their beds and shot tonight, but the world
is not built for people like you and I. As long as intelligent people are a
minority we have to engineer around the problems of government because whether
you or I like it government is here to stay.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"Corporations don't kill people because they are not legally allowed to"

That's one of the most provocative things I have heard in a while. I have to
make a comment here. Please forgive the intrusion. (I haven't read the entire
thread)

Corporations are businesses. They provide the best service or product to
people at the lowest price.

How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing
people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where
corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the
night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation? If you
were a CEO, would you gamble the entire corporate stock on it?

It's the stuff of Hollywood fantasy, not reality. Business is based on good
faith, trustworthy contracts, and the moral and physical support of all
concerned. You can't just start whacking people and expect any of that to stay
around. That's not reality. Yes -- you could sell a dangerous product. But
that's not killing people. It's a different thing entirely.

As for "engineering government" to work for you, I assume that's the main part
of your thread. I'd simply ask that you do a LOT of reading on engineering
government to work for people. There have been a lot of people doing a lot of
engineering, so we have a lot of history to read and learn about.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
_How could you keep a market interested in your product if you were killing
people making it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where
corporations got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the
night to keep prices low would actually work for _any_ corporation?_

How could you keep a people supporting your government if you were killing
people running it? Do you think some kind of secret trade-off where the
government got to kill vast numbers of people secretly in the middle of the
night to keep your standard of living high would actually work for _any_
government?

I don't make the same nebulous distinction between governments and other
entities. A government is just type of corporation that is allowed to
kill/incarcerate people.

I hope you don't think I am anti-corporate. Quite the opposite, I think that
the shared stock company is responsible in large part for the civilization we
see today. Feudalism would have continued indefinitely until the markets were
allowed to take over. And I think that government should be run like
corporation: the interests of the shareholders is made explicit and shares can
be bought and sold on the open market. The job of the CEO is to maximize
revenue and only shareholders have a say in whether the CEO is doing a good
job or not. This is in essence what we have now with congress playing the role
of CEO and special interest groups playing the role of shareholders. The only
difference is that everything would be formalized and transparent.

And yes, I do a LOT of reading on the history of government, specifically
between the renaissance and the 18th century. Read enough and you'll start to
see that democracy is a type of fascism. It is a fascism of public opinion but
fascism none the less. Our capitalist republic government is not quite as bad
as a democracy but it is also not a stable entity, it is a delicate balance
between the powers of mob rule and that of individual liberties.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
"How could you keep a people supporting your government if you were killing
people running it?" - er, because government is the monopoly on the use of
force as stated in the social contract? And no, there is no trade-off
involved. What, switching words around amuses you?

"A government is just type of corporation that is allowed to kill/incarcerate
people." -- what, are you from the school for slow Marxists? I don't even know
where begin with you. Do some reading on the rise of the merchant classes
during the crusades. Perhaps learn a bit from John Locke about Natural Law.
Check out some Hobbes and learn some about the social contract. Government is
a completely different entity than a corporation. It's like you're comparing
earthworms and 747s. Here's a hint for you: can't have a corporation without a
government. But you can have a government without a corporation. That's just
for starters.

If you'd like to make an extended metaphor, you're going to have to do much
better than just saying "X is the same as Y. Now I want to draw some
conclusions." You have to be able to differentiate the history, structure,
purpose, evolution, issues, risks, and possible future states of each item.
then you show how they are the same. Or conversely, you could go to
theoretical underpinnings and come up with a list of common attributes that
you could claim are all that matter in regards to your statements. The best I
could do offhand is note that both governments and corporations consists of
"shareholders" and have an executive section. But even then, "shareholder" is
not anywhere near how a person relates to their government.

I'm not your teacher. Go find one. Or find the one you used before and ask for
your money back. This is dreck.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
you presume I haven't read Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes because I've drawn
different conclusions than you? How about Burke and Goethe? Spinoza, Hume and
Kant? I can fallaciously appeal to authority too, just because I've read all
of these writers doesn't mean I can pass off the onus of thinking on them. I
see many of the problems in today's society as going directly back to flaws in
enlightenment era ideas about government. And why would you call me a slow
Marxist? I hate collectivism, are my posts coming off as anti-corporate just
because I called the government one? Assuredly the government is a poorly run
corporation but that doesn't mean I'm inditing corporations in general.

And it's not a metaphor, I'm saying that government is literally the same as a
corporation. The American government is a corporation whose assets are the
land between the atlantic and pacific and bordered by canada and mexico. In
payment for the use of this land, every person tithes a percentage of any
value they earn/create. People also agree to abide by certain rules of
conduct. seems all very straightforward to me. No need to invent some special
privileges that government is magically imbued with that a corporation
wouldn't have.

Think of it this way, if a corporation decided that it would be in its best
interests to start operating off of an island in international waters wouldn't
the corporation need to defend its holdings with military force and do its own
policing?

The idea that government has some sort of mystical, moral, or intrinsic
"right" to run things is nonsense. It's just a group of people who by various
means, legal, military, or otherwise have gained the ability to determine what
happens on a specific tract of land. That they then set up a school system by
which people are taught that they do have a moral, mystical, or intrinsic
right to run the place should not be surprising.

The fact that corporations have a clear motive and government does not is part
of my problem with government. What the hell is purpose of government? If the
purpose of government is just to provide security, enforce contracts, keep
foreigners at bay, and otherwise provide a stable environment in which people
can conduct private business then the U.S. government is doing a piss poor job
and ought to be fired.

Do you know what the U.S. is trying to do? because the system by which it
arrives at decisions about what to do seems pretty damn opaque to me. It's
certainly not public opinion, but nor is it dictatorship since as far as I can
see the man supposedly in charge can't hire or fire people, can't affect major
policies, can't decide the budget or any other useful thing.

------
sown
I should also point out that it is extremely selfish when people repeat the
"If you've got nothing to hide" argument.

They advocate giving away their rights and yours at the same time.

 _miffed_

~~~
pierrefar
Yep. When they say "you've got nothing to hide" I ask them if they close their
curtains at night. Or if they lock their door. Or ask them for their exact
salary, how they spent it, and why they chose to spend their money that way.

I think many people don't realize how much they value their own privacy and so
I try to give them examples to force them value it on their own.

~~~
cstejerean
I got much better things to hide than how much money I make and what I spend
it on.

~~~
pierrefar
Sadly, those wanting my privacy don't. See you have a life and they don't.

------
mike_organon
I often like Schneier, but his arguments are weak in this article.

"My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they
accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is
an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition
with dignity and respect."

I do agree with Schneier's examples and reasons of the importance of privacy,
and I agree that the point is not about hiding a wrong.

In addition to "an inherent human right" it's also "a basic human need," he
says. I would say that the right to life (including property) is fundamental,
and privacy of different things is something one can choose to protect or not
depending on the issue. Most people don't care about phone number and address
being public; they don't cover their faces walking around town; they don't
care that grocery stores and credit cards track purchases. Privacy as an
extension of life and property makes more sense. You protect it where it's
important.

I don't see that he argued any points about dignity and respect being
essential to his point - I think those are just some of the reasons you want
to keep some things private, not essentials.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I think he's absolutely right to call privacy a basic need, much more so than
property. Being exposed can be humiliating. I think it's a very fundamental
psychological need to draw your own lines and open up selectively towards
people you trust. Being in control of your private matters is necessary in
order to feel safe and safety is a recognised basic psychological need. I'd
rather someone take away my bike than make me feel vulnerable, helpless and
exposed to people I may not trust.

~~~
khafra
In this sense, I'd call privacy part of the social level in Maslow's heirarchy
of needs. It's a more abstracted need than food or shelter, which is why
people will historically give up social needs for the physical fundamentals--
but it's only less important than food and shelter in the sense that layers
4-7 of the OSI model are less important than layers 1-3.

------
Alex3917
I still favor, "Just because I have something to hide doesn't mean I'm doing
anything wrong." It seems to be the most technically correct answer.

------
vixen99
Wonderful. A copy of this should be sent to every legislator. However I think
he misuses the word 'right'. Privacy is not a human right - evidently so
because there is no general agreement as to how it's defined and respected. A
right is nothing unless it's accepted (with due regulation) by all reasonable
people. Governments have shown increasingly that they, the elite, wish to
determine absolutely the limits of the privacy we naturally seek.

------
known
I think Government must always be smarter than Businesses!

------
cdr
A 2+ year old article by Bruce Schneier that has nothing to do with coding?

HN is now officially Reddit.

