
[FR] Je n'ai rien à cacher (I've got nothing to hide) - couac
http://jenairienacacher.fr/
======
hengheng
(I don't know enough French to discuss this matter, let's stick to English)

All the people I have met who resort to the "nothing to hide" paradigm were
older than 65.these people don't have Facebook or smartphones, and they don't
realize that their cars, insurance records and financial transactions are all
being tracked. They do not understand the sensitivity of meta data or social
graphs, nor do they care. They have their life in order, and surveillance
doesn't take anything away from them. The fear of terrorism is a lot more
substantial at their points in life.

I don't know about discourse in France - I can imagine that hell just broke
loose after the recent attacks. Here in Germany, it's very much a generation
problem. Those who care about civil rights and an active democracy are young,
and young educated people are a minority. Old people are heavily catered to by
the governing parties, and they all seem to love surveillance, most being
lucky enough to never have experienced the downsides.

This fight feels a lot like the gay rights movement. Preconceptions are
impossible to overcome, all you can do is wait for twenty years until you have
a sizeable part of the population behind you, and then start an uproar. In the
meantime, it doesn't help to, say, explain how small the aids propagation rate
is. Nobody cares.

~~~
miguelrochefort
I'm in the "nothing to hide" camp, and I'm not even 25.

Unlike many, I don't see lack of privacy as a compromise, nor do I see it as a
security feature (i.e., against terrorism). Unlike many, I do understand the
sensitivity of meta data and social graphs, and I deeply care about it.

It is obvious to me that transparency has all the benefits over privacy. It's
a simpler way to think about and understand the world, it's easier to
implement and maintain, and it's much more efficient.

Transparency is the way it should be. Privacy is just a band-aid, a patch, a
set of arbitrary workarounds that in no way fights the underlying problems, if
any there are. If anything, privacy only contributes to the increasing
reliance on privacy that's expected of us. By keeping information secret, you
encourage others to think it should be, and some people eventually are lead to
believe that some things should inherently be secretive, without understanding
why that is.

Do you really want to live in a world where you must constantly worry about
your every steps, your every words, your every interactions? Do you believe it
is sustainable to build systems that are 100 times more complex and
inefficient as they should be just because you want to remain anonymous? Do
you embrace the fact that people who are better manipulators/liers will always
have an edge in a society that encourages privacy, since they can control what
they decide to show the world? Do you realize that a system that's based on
the assumption that secrets are kept secrets is much more fragile than one
that's not, as secrets are becoming increasingly more difficult to keep? Do
you not realize how much value and opportunities we miss now that people were
tricked into believing that privacy is necessary? Bitcoin, Google Glass, geo-
tracking anything, health record analysis, etc.

I don't want to hide anymore. I don't want to compete with liers, or be
tricked by them. I don't want to password-protect all the things. I don't want
to browse behind 7 proxies. I don't want to be explicit about everything that
could be implicitly inferred through tracking. I don't want to keep secrets
anymore.

Fortunately, I soon won't have to. Transparency will thrive, and privacy will
die. My only worry is, how far and deep will people like you go into making
society rely on and expect privacy. The deeper you go, the more brutal the
transition will be the day the choice is no longer yours.

~~~
quesera
> Fortunately, I soon won't have to. Transparency will thrive, and privacy
> will die.

Privacy doesn't make the world perfect, but neither would transparency.

I hate to accuse anyone of privileged naivety, but if you believe that the
elimination of privacy would be a net improvement for the world, then you must
also:

    
    
      - be in a position of social power, and confident in 
        your ability to remain there, or
    
      - hold no important opinions that diverge from the 
        orthodoxy or the power structure that upholds it
    
      AND
    
      - have no knowledge of the history of marginalized
        groups, the reasons for their marginalization, or
        the repercussions thereof, or
    
      - believe we already live in, or are moving inexorably
        toward, a eutopian global kumbaya where everyone just 
        gets along, because enlightenment
    

I share your dislike for the effort that goes into maintaining privacy. But I
know it's important -- vital, even -- because the world is a complicated
place. More so for some than others.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Those in positions of social power thrive on secrecy. It's how they are able
to maintain that power. So, yes, maybe transparency will alter the lives of
those with immense social power (and perhaps in ways those people would not
want), but it will likely allow everyone else to benefit from reduced control
by elites.

The real lesson from history seems to be that information is power and secret
information even more. Elites (what you describe as those with social power)
have used their secrets to repress everyone else for millennia (and likely
longer than that).

------
fit2rule
The French have a lot to worry about, because their country is a serious pain
in the ass to a lot of people in the world.

What the French have done to Africa, and what they continue to do to Africa -
which should be one of the richest continents on Earth, in terms of world
economy - is definitely something that has to be hidden from the French
public, or else they wouldn't stand one minute more of their ruling elite
lying to them.

Former French colonies are, as of today, being heavily repressed by France.
This fact needs to continue to be hidden, lest the world wake up to the
repression and demand that the French people do something effective about it.
Until then, terrorism is to be expected. You can't rule as an imperial power
and not expect blowback; people want to be free to live their lives un-
repressed.

EDIT: Read this, and then re-consider your downvote:
[http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-
colonies/](http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/)

Fact is, the Western nations have a _lot_ of responsibility for imperial
machinations in the world, and while the French people - as well as those of
us in other Western nations - may not have anything to hide, we certainly have
a _LOT_ that must be revealed to us in order to understand just why people are
willing to give their lives to disrupt Western imperialism. Its not all
religion; mostly, its economic and human rights violations on the part of the
Western powers, which motivates such heinous response.

~~~
ptaipale
That "thisisafrica" article has been posted to HN at least twice recently, see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8876429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8876429)

\- and as the previous comment chain says, it looks very bogus.

~~~
fit2rule
"Looking bogus" is not the same as being bogus.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearstream_affair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearstream_affair)

I would personally be quite content to see more evidence presented in the
public sphere and world court. When/if it happens, let us pick up the thread
..

~~~
ptaipale
The previous chain

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8876429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8876429)

explains in quite a lot of detail how it walks like bogus and talks like
bogus. It makes extraordinary claims which cannot be backed up, and which are
conflicting with realistic assessment of what is possible (for instance, that
France would be ripping off an amount of money that equals to its annual state
budget, without that money showing up anywhere.)

~~~
fit2rule
Nothing in that thread is anything but opinion.

As for the money not showing up anywhere, its quite clear that the French
secret services are involved in covering up the transactions - this is one of
their key tasks, after all.

------
subliminalpanda
Translation of the first point, to best of my ability (If interested in more,
please ask):

I have nothing to hide. In fact yes, and so do you.

\-----

\--> May I ask for your computer, e-mail and Facebook password? Promise, I
won't do anything bad, only read.

How would you dare to answer no? If you have nothing to hide, you cannot make
the distinction in what you disclose publicly, and what may bother you a
little bit more. As soon as you impose a barrier, you have something to hide
(and that's normal!).

The rest of us, human beings, are distinguished between each other because we
all have a private life, an intimacy that we do not reveal to all. \-----

~~~
LLWM
That's a silly question that calls into question your understanding of
computer systems. When we say we have nothing to hide, we're not talking about
passwords. Someone knowing your password can impersonate you. That's a very
different risk from them knowing information about you.

If all you want to do is read the information I make public, send a friend
request like a normal person.

~~~
fit2rule
Did you miss the memo where the repressive security agencies of the world have
given themselves the right to impersonate you online?

~~~
LLWM
Yeah, probably. I thought that was all security agencies. Isn't the whole idea
of spies that they assume false identities to try to gather information they
wouldn't legitimately have access to?

~~~
fit2rule
You want them doing that at the packet layer?

~~~
LLWM
I'm sure they will do it at whatever layer they need to in order to create a
convincing persona, regardless of what any of us want.

------
SixSigma
If suddenly there was a regime that was going to exterminate all French people
you might change your tune.

You have no idea what the world will be like 10 years from now.

The French nationals that dutifully filled out their 1930s census form had
nothing to hide, until IBM rolled into town and started doing 1940s Big Data
on it, then lots of people wanted to hide.

~~~
palunon
That's the exact point of the article...

~~~
e40
Perhaps the misunderstanding is due to many of us not understanding French...

------
bsaul
I generaly agree with those slides, yet something bother me in one of the
video :

One of the slide gives a false feeling of equality between two quotes, one by
Brice hortefeux and one by Eric schmidt on privacy.

The first one is about surveillance cameras put in public streets by an
elected representative of the people (a mayor).

The other is about scanning private conversations by a private company who
only deals with shareholders.

I don't think calling everything "a society of surveillance" helps to finely
tune the measures that we'll have to put in place to improve security in a not
too radical way.

He later makes the point that even measures taken by governments could be
completely misused by fascists regime, which is true. But then the problem is
maintaining a democratic power, and a fair legal system.

And that problem existed with disastrous consequences far before the internet
was created.

~~~
mercurial
> One of the slide gives a false feeling of equality between two quotes, one
> by Brice hortefeux and one by Eric schmidt on privacy. > The first one is
> about surveillance cameras put in public streets by an elected
> representative of the people (a mayor). > The other is about scanning
> private conversations by a private company who only deals with shareholders.

Don't people choose to trust Google with their data, in the same way they
delegate their power to the mayor?

> He later makes the point that even measures taken by governments could be
> completely misused by fascists regime, which is true. But then the problem
> is maintaining a democratic power, and a fair legal system.

What are you getting at with that?

The fact is, large amounts of processing power, an incredible amount of data
collected (in a way that would not have been possible in a pre-Internet era),
and little accountability by design are an extremely dangerous combination.
You do not even need to go back to the Vichy era for that. Both Hoover and the
Gaullist SAC people would have been delighted to have such information at
their disposal...

~~~
bsaul
"what are you getting at with that ?"

Well, that if a country becomes non democratic to the point where surveillance
cameras or email snooping becomes a problem, then there would probably be a
lot of bigger problems to deal with in the first place (such as people with
gun in the street that can arrest you physically for no reason).

------
Galanwe
Google translate in english:
[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjenairienacacher.fr%2F&edit-
text=&act=url)

------
jpatte
The third paragraph "Pourquoi est-ce plus compliqué que ce que l'on pense ?"
("Why is it more complicated than what you think?") refers to retroactivity of
the law [1], claiming that you might have troubles later for doing things that
are not illegal now but might become illegal in the future, which means it's
safer to just hide what you are doing now. However AFAIK retroactive laws are
forbidden by Human Rights (and by the United States Constitution, notably)
except for very specific cases, so this whole paragraph is a giant strawman.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law)

~~~
antientropic
That makes the risky assumption that every future government will consider
itself bound by the ban on ex post facto laws.

------
icebraining
Sigh. Another argument based on (1) missing the context under which many
people say that phrase, which is "nothing to hide" _from law enforcement_ ,
and on (2) images of a future totalitarian system, which regardless of how
likely it actually is, it's not considered so by most people.

In my case, they're preaching to the choir, but if I was actually one of the
people they were trying to convince, it'd fail completely.

------
jetskindo
Not having something to hide forces you to divulge everything because you have
nothing to hide. Except that thing that is nobody's business.

This mentality fires back quickly and is usually a trait of someone who
haven't thought it through yet.

~~~
LLWM
Everyone who disagrees with you simply hasn't thought things through? What a
compelling argument.

------
julie1
It is a FUD. Thesis : you may think you have nothing to hide, but because of
sociogramms and retroactive laws you do. Because everybody is related to
everybody, you are being watched. Thus don't move, don't speak, just hide.

------
perlgeek
A page like this should show naked man and woman (not too attractive), with
all their pubic hair and genitals exposed.

Most people think they have their body to hide. Showing them that it isn't so
might make a difference.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Clothes have protective and insulative properties. Their purpose is not always
solely to hide physical appearance.

~~~
thissideup
Bathing suits don't, but they're still widely worn.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Bathing suits don't have protective or insulative properties? What?

~~~
thissideup
[http://www.wigglestatic.com/product-
media/5360090022/speedo_...](http://www.wigglestatic.com/product-
media/5360090022/speedo_placement-5cm-brief-print-5-black-usa-charcoal-
watermelon-front_SS14.jpg?w=1400&h=1400&a=7)

~~~
icebraining
Personally, I've tried nudist bathing, and I much prefer having a layer of
protection between my crotch and rocks, sharp shells, and the sun.

~~~
thissideup
You're missing the forest. The point is that people choose to cover certain
parts of themselves, even if they are just laying on a towel sunbathing.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Do you really want some of the most sensitive parts of your body directly
(minus some atmospheric particles) exposed to the sun's harsh photons?

~~~
thissideup
> You're missing the forest.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Maybe. I can't read the French language, so I don't know what the article
claims.

However, unless the article is making some absurd metaphor, the points above
stand.

------
guyzmo
Manual english translation (draft):

[https://lite5.framapad.org/p/nothing-to-
hide](https://lite5.framapad.org/p/nothing-to-hide)

please improve it, and why not make an igotnothingtohide website ;-)

~~~
guyzmo
as I already own the domain, I have put together:

[http://nothing.to/hide/](http://nothing.to/hide/)

which redirects to the pad. Once we got a nice and readable translation, I'll
put a nicer page over there. Don't hesitate to ping me on twitter @guyzmo, or
IRC (freenode, zmo).

