
Ask HN: What's a good response to “It's fine, I've got nothing to hide online”? - DavidPiper
Whenever I try to explain my concerns about online data privacy to other people (family and friends, mostly), the most common response I get is:<p>&quot;Oh it&#x27;s fine, &lt;Facebook&#x2F;Google&#x2F;etc&gt; can collect whatever they want, I don&#x27;t have anything to hide.&quot;<p>I try to explain that the kind of data collection (and use&#x2F;sale) we see from these businesses can be a much bigger concern than just &quot;Facebook knows where I work&quot;, but I can never really articulate my thoughts well.<p>What are some good ways to explain to (primarily non-technical) people why it might be worthwhile being more aware of what data is being collected on them?
======
gargravarr
I would ask to rifle through their phone right in front of them.

There's a subtle difference between something you'd want to hide (because it
could be incriminating) and something you don't want made public (because it
could be embarrassing). I have nothing incriminating, but I have embarrassing
stuff on my phone that I would rather nobody looked at.

A phone is an intensely personal device where a lot of your private data
resides, and it can reveal a lot of intimate things about you and your
relationship with others. Many people do understand this (at least at an
instinctive level) and would balk at the idea of someone invasively reading
all this stuff on their phone.

It's one I plan to use on airport security if they ever order me to decrypt my
phone without a warrant.

~~~
Freak_NL
Why would airport security care about your reasoning? They don't need a
warrant when you're still outside the border, and they most likely are not in
a position to bargain with you on what they may and may not do — and they
probably won't respond favourably to any attempt to do so.

~~~
gargravarr
True on all counts, but it might make the person actually doing the search
question their own motives for doing so. Just because they have the power to
conduct random warrantless searches with no prior suspicion (which I totally
abhor as it likely leads to racial profiling, like Stop and Search here in the
UK), does not mean they need to use it.

Then again, I'm a university-educated white male. It'll probably never happen
to me, but will disproportionately to others.

~~~
emile14
I'm not sure that security people have "motives" \- I think they have jobs. If
their job requires asking random people to decrypt their phones, then
attempting to enlighten them is only going to annoy them.

------
capnrefsmmat
I think most people here are missing the point. You need not convince them
that they _do_ have something to hide, or that other people have good reasons
for hiding things.

The key point is that _you do not get to decide if you have something to
hide_.

When you share data extensively with companies or the government, they now
have the power to use it to make decisions about you. They may use that power
in ways you disagree with. They may punish you for things you don’t think are
wrong, or deny you employment for reasons you think are stupid, and so on.
It’s not _your_ decision that you are perfect and have nothing to hide; _they_
get to use your data and decide that.

Daniel Solove has expressed a version of this argument before, that privacy is
really about power, and it is compelling:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565)

Moxie Marlinspike makes a similar point that positive social changes, like
acceptance of homosexuality or marijuana, require the ability to do socially
disapproved things in private. With no privacy, the changes would never
happen, because nobody would have been able to, say, privately have a same-sex
relationship. [https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-
hide/](https://moxie.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to-hide/)

~~~
metaloha
The issue at it's most fundamental level is that people are putting things on
Facebook (and other social networks) with an expectation of privacy in the
first place. If you post something on Facebook, you have in fact decided that
you do not have something to hide.

I care about my privacy, but everything I've put on Facebook is public as far
as I'm concerned. I don't care that they are using that information to profile
me and serve ads for things I might like because I posted there with full
knowledge of that. If I want something to be private, I don't put it on
Facebook (or other social networks).

------
_Donny
I remember seeing a documentary featuring Edward Snowden, where he said
something along the lines:

"Saying "I do not care about my privacy, because I have nothing to hide", is
like saying "I do not care about freedom of speech, because I have nothing to
say""

This explanation stuck with me, because I find it extremely useful in
situations when explaining the importance of privacy online to non-technical
people.

~~~
janneklouman
While a nice quote, It's not addressing _why_ privacy matters. Most people
already have an understanding of why freedom of speech is important, but might
not think privacy is as important. They could easily call this "comparing
apples and oranges", a similar scenario to the one in the original post.

------
gtsteve
A more aggressive example that seems to get the idea through to people:

> Would you be OK with the police installing a camera in your house? Don't
> worry, they'll only look at it if they think you've done something wrong,
> you can trust them on that. Totally. You've got nothing to hide, right?

I think non-tech people don't quite realise what sort of footprint they leave
online, whereas the idea of a camera being in your home where someone may or
may not be watching makes people feel quite uncomfortable. This is an
opportunity to draw a parallel between the two.

I have found this argument to be effective in changing people's views on this
topic.

~~~
ChymeraXYZ
I have found that many people are not really too concerned about it. There is
a home security company here that sells an alarm system and one of the indoor
movement sensor units has a built in camera.

No you do not have any access to the camera. No, there is no indication that
it is active. No, you can not opt out. No, you can not see any source (I
asked). "But it will only ever be used when there is an alarm to verify".

And most of the people go: "Sure, sounds reasonable!"

~~~
gtsteve
This feels maybe a little bit more reasonable because you installed the camera
yourself and have contracted a company to monitor it. You can opt out by
cancelling the contract.

In my example, the user has no choice, just as you frequently have no choice
but to allow your web traffic or activity be monitored.

------
amauk
I've often found that people don't fully understand the staged process. The
fact that, most of the time, it's not what you directly supply to a 3rd party
(as that's often innocuous) But the fact that this can be used as a stepping
stone to gaining other, more private details.

The example I often use (as it's actually happened to people) is the different
usage of the last 4 digits of a bank card.

Some companies will freely throw this info around, as a convenience to the
user. In emailed order confirmations, etc.

Other companies, however, use the last 4 digits of a card as a security
measure To confirm you are the account holder, please supply the last 4 digits
of the card used, or whatever.

Using social engineering, you can play these 2 companies off of each other,
and possible gain some extra information A name, a billing address, or
whatever.

I try to emphasis that you, the user, are not involved in this at all This is
a person going back and forth between various company's call-centres using the
info to gain more It's a to-and-fro, initially with only the innocuous
information, but by the end you possibly have the authority to order something
using the legit card and billing address but delivery to a PO box (sorry, UK
terminology here, unsure what the US equiv. of a PO box would be, but delivery
to a post office for collection)

I try to steer away from the more outlandish stuff (while true, and in use,
people seem to dismiss them - like the recent psychological manipulation used
on Facebook) I try to keep it simple, someone ordering some jewellery on your
card and collecting it from a PO box, all completely without your knowledge

I also try to emphasis the importance of securing your email account. As
someone with access to your email can run through the "I forgot my password"
things on various popular sites.

I like the "last 4 digits of a card" thing, as most people have come across
this difference User convenience vs. security measure But it's never
registered as a potential problem

~~~
jowsie
>I like the "last 4 digits of a card" thing, as most people have come across
this difference User convenience vs. security measure But it's never
registered as a potential problem

As someone who is against the facebook data slurp, this is something I'd never
really noticed till just now either.

------
oldcynic
Well first remind them of the difference between secrecy and privacy:

"Hide? We all know what is done in the bathroom, yet we still close the door."

Then you might point out that it is not about _them,_ but the worst of
everyone else, globally. Worst in business ethics, willingness to influence,
extent of tracking, or criminality to steal a pw database - it matters little
as there's someone covering _all_ of those options.

"Nothing to hide? What is your most unusual sexual fantasy, mother's maiden
name, first pet, credit card PIN, FB and email password, SSN? I'll only
mention them in one place online, delete after a day and pay back double what
I spend."

~~~
chiefofgxbxl
The difference between secrecy and privacy is the key here. Emphasize that.
People think they have nothing to _hide_ (implying secrecy or guilt), but
they'll admit that there are things they want to keep to themselves.

There was a speaker on stage (sorry I forget the source) that asked an
audience member up. The speaker asked the individual to read aloud her credit
card number to the rest of the audience. She refused. He took it a step
further -- he asked her to remove her clothes on stage. Again, she refused.
Was she hiding something? Was she wielding a dangerous weapon under her
clothes? Or was she reacting like most people presumably would by refusing to
undress?

------
chartz
This is maybe a controversial approach, but it works really well.

Agree with them and say it is fine you have nothing to hide at this moment,
but you are not important now. There are politicians, high ranked officials
and a lot of other people that impact your life without you knowing that they
can be influenced/blackmailed because of the lack of privacy. Maybe your
future self really dislikes your lack of hiding right now or some family
member is becoming a public figure and you are a weak link because you can be
blackmailed. You don't control the future, so you don't know what to hide.

This argument always worked/works for me :)

~~~
gargravarr
You could even paraphrase Martin Neimoller's well-known (if not the author
himself, I didn't until I looked him up) poem[0]:

    
    
        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    
        Because I was not a Socialist.
    
        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    
        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    
        Because I was not a Jew.
    
        Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    

I think the message is just as relevant (and powerful) to personal liberties
as it is to groups of people.

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

------
kgraves
Ask them if they are comfortable sharing their private facebook messages,
emails, snapchats, contacts, map locations, and pictures with you upfront to
look at.

Then show them this:
[https://youtu.be/TX8MSZy5I3I](https://youtu.be/TX8MSZy5I3I)

Facebook, Google, Snapchat and other services that are "free" are doing this
with your personal information for profit. If the CEO of Facebook doesn't want
to give out his personal information carelessly, why should you?

------
announcerman
I always ask them to give me their phone for a few minutes so I can check
their messaging history, invariably they refuse. Just ask them why.

~~~
mrarjen
This always works best yes, up until a person doesn't mind and you get to see
things you rather not.

------
i0nutzb
„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.”

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

------
reitanqild
Using police as an example since I don't trust Facebook at all.

For me the turning point was when I realised that while I have nothing to hide
from police or governments today I might have something I wish to hide from
governments in 2030.

For a real world example of this, see Turkey - a country that was quickly
approaching western standards but turned around in less than 2 years.

Also, while I trust local police that most of them will not abuse their
knowledge I don't trust them to keep that data safe from hacking for decades
to come.

Also, while I've used (local) police as an example of someone I trust i do
_not_ trust companies by default.

~~~
gargravarr
In the early years of Mao Zedong's China, the government appeared open and
willing to listen to common people's ideas on how it should be run. Many,
especially younger generations, were encouraged to openly express their
opinions.

Shortly thereafter, Mao backtracked on the whole thing, surprising everyone,
and labeled anyone who had spoken out as opposition; because people had
publicly spoken out against the government, they were easily tracked down and
imprisoned.[0]

What the government gives with one hand, it can easily take with the other.
There is no reason to think such an event could not happen again, and that
what you freely share today could be used against you at some time in the
future.

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

------
notacoward
I'd start with "it's not always about you" because it's likely to stop them in
their tracks long enough to get a real explanation in. Stalkers, harassers,
identity thieves, and other criminals routinely use perfectly innocent
information about people to harm them. So do some parts of the government,
unfortunately. Even if _you_ are not a target (which is less likely than you
think), others certainly are. Children have nothing to hide either, but we
still take extra privacy measures to protect them.

~~~
ahje
This is the argument I am using most of the time. Most people agree that there
are malicious actors out there, and that many would be able to exploit free
access to a person's personal data in some way.

Would you trust a burgular with your location data when you're on vacation?
No? Neither would I.

Would you trust a business you barely know anything about to keep your
location data out of the hands of someone who commits crime for a living? In
my case, not a chance.

------
varlock
I usually ask "So, if you have got nothing to hide, would you shower naked on
your balcony for everyone to see?"

Normally you wouldn't, because there could be effects you find displeasing in
the best case and harming in the worst case, such as getting
ridiculed/discriminated/ostracized/etc.

Collecting private data about you can get you categorized in a similar way,
carrying the same potential ill effects.

------
onion2k
"You're not just sharing your data with Facebook. You're sharing your data
with Facebook _and anyone Facebook subsequently gives access to that data_.
That's companies, governments, and individuals. You may trust Facebook, but do
you trust _everyone_?"

------
ujal
"The Netherlands used to keep track of people’s religion as part of the public
records. The intent was noble as always: by keeping track of how many Jews,
Catholics, and Protestants there were in a city and its different parts, you
would be able to plan for an appropriate amount of synagogues, Protestant
churches, and Catholic churches, their proportion to one another, and so on.

Then, World War II came around.

There were almost no Jews at all in the Netherlands after World War II.
According to Wikipedia, less than 10% survived (14,346, compared to an earlier
population of 154,887). As it turns out, it was very convenient for the… new
administration… to have access to the collected data, and it was indeed used
against the citizens, as it always is in the end." \--

~~~
Cthulhu_
And that is why a proposed Muslim registry is chilling.

I don't know for sure, but were census records used to put Japanese-Americans
in concentration camps in the US in WW2? Or was that based purely on looks?

------
nanis
One might have nothing to hide from one's neighbor either, but one might
wonder why he is keeping a detailed log of one's comings and goings, visitors,
the times the bathroom light is turned on etc, as well as attaching tracking
devices to one's car, bike, skis, and even clothing. One might get really
uneasy if one finds out he has been collecting detailed information about one
from the grocery store, gas station, movie theater, and restaurants etc.

Even if one is not doing anything wrong, one might feel uneasy about having a
"permanent record" of all one's movements tied to one's full biometric
information.

------
pcarolan
I thought Senator Durbin phrased it well:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIKWURvbQ4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTIKWURvbQ4)

------
AlphaGeekZulu
It is important to point out that the quality of the data is not important.
There is no such thing as dangerous vs harmless data, because that quality
completely depends on the context.

So I usually give a context in which "harmless" data can be misused to build
trust for scamming schemes (something, that most people, that do not care
about data privacy, fear a lot as real threat). I look, for example, in the
fb-timeline of my counterpart and immediately come up with a story, how I, as
a stranger with scamming intentions, would ring their doorbell and tell some
story why I need to enter the house or collect some money or the like, making
myself believable with the information I collected from the social media
sites. In the same way I describe how I would draft a spear phishing mail,
pretending to be some member of the inner circle by using public information
of that circle.

Finally I point them to the contradiction, that they ask their neighbour to
empty the mailbox during their vacation, so nobody can see they are away, but
then they provide a live-coverage of their trip in social media. Once they get
the picture, that the burglar might not be walking down the streets looking
for overflowing mailboxes but rather investigate his potential victims on
facebook, they start to reconsider the "I have nothing to hide"-opinion.

The trick is to set the topic into a context that is comprehensible and
likely. People can often not imagine how their average lives could be
interesting for corporates and governments - it is a perceived unlikelyness on
a deeper level: not only do they believe that corporates and governments would
not misuse privacy data, they cannot even see why such a misuse could be of
any value. In their perception, there is no misuse, because there is no reason
for misuse.

------
ergodic
IMO the economical argument is the most robust. I see it like this:

There is a big margin between

1) the amount of information that you are legally obligated to provide to
public and private sectors

2) the amount information that can be mined about you through facebook and
other services (+smart data-crunching)

Safeguarding that information that falls between 2 and 1 is not a matter of
moral standpoints or having something to hide. It has only to do with a
properly informed rational decision about your personal economy and your well
being.

That information that you are willfully leaking will weaken your position in
any future negotiation including, financial credit, insurance and employment
among others. After Cambridge Analytica it is more clear than ever that it
will also weaken your ability to protect yourself against well armed
psychological manipulation.

and that is all assuming that public and private institutions do not make
mistakes, that legal boundaries and procedures are flawless and that you leave
in a well executed democracy.

------
devn0ll
"Ok, then please tell me your pin code.", "How many times a week do you
copulate?", "Can I take a look inside your house please".

"No? Why not, you had nothing to hide? So an automated system is allowed much
more detailed information about you and making money with that data? But I
can't have a look inside your drawers?"

------
rabboRubble
I always say "Oh, you might not, but some day somebody you love might find
themselves in trouble, and your transparency may harm them. Example, if your
kid says they were with you as an alibi when accused of a crime, but your
Facebook profile says you were in Hawaii, your kid might be in serious
trouble.

We also know that the government has stated in Congressional hearings they
make networks of 6 degrees of separation. You might not be doing anything
wrong but just happen to find yourself 2 degrees removed from a major child
porn investigation. God forbid the way you connect to those awful people seems
interesting to prosecutors. They will be so far up your backside, you will be
tasting the law. Even if you are innocent, your life will be ruined with legal
fees and you will be shunned by your community. This is my worst case
scenario."

------
jccalhoun
I think the concerns over privacy online are overblown for many people but I
try to be smart about what I do and put online. So I think part of it might be
the framing of the situation. Rather than trying to convince them that they do
actually have something to hide, it might be more effective to try to convince
them that their attitude should be more like, "Don't put anything online that
you don't want everyone to know" and also explain that there are people who do
worry about things like people who have been in abusive relationships, people
who might be in places where not being straight and cis gendered is not
accepted and so on.

I think it might also be good to ask yourself, "What do I want to accomplish
by convincing this person to be concerned about online privacy?" and think
about ways to accomplish that goal.

------
timrichard
Some ones I've seen and liked -

"If you're not doing anything wrong in your living room, why draw the
curtains?"

"We should save paper by sending people their bank statements on postcards. If
you're not doing anything financially shady, you should be okay with the
postman seeing it."

~~~
mxuribe
"Bank statements on a postcard"...this is the first time i heard this
one...but, man, its a good one!

------
rutthenut
Would they like FB, Google, eBay, Apple et al to know which banks they hold
accounts with, how often they access them, from PCs and from their phones? Or
what religion you may follow? Or your other personal preferences? Would they
like such organisations to put together a profile of what they think the
person is like, based on the web sites they use, when they use them, what they
buy from them and more? And then for those profiles to be used by credit
rating organisations, or by employers during recruitment processes, or by
customs officials when entering a country? All of the above without your
explicit permission, perhaps because someone you know has thought it was ok,
and with no verification that their assessment of you is correct?

------
tudorconstantin
Ask them what do states have to hide by having stuff classified as "top
secret" or why do they run secret services. And why should I, as an
individual, be transparent with an entity that is not transparent to me?

~~~
koolba
> Ask them what do states have to hide by having stuff classified as "top
> secret" or why do they run secret services.

I’m as tinfoil hat wearing as they come but will still say that’s a terrible
answer. States have intelligence agencies and maintain secrecy for both
security reasons (nuclear codes shouldn’t be public right?) and privacy
reasons of citizens involved (innocent till proven guilty).

> And why should I, as an individual, be transparent with an entity that is
> not transparent to me?

The first half of that is enough to stand on its own. You shouldn’t have to be
transparent simply because that’s your choice to do so.

------
atonse
I’ve been playing with this analogy for years and used it a few times but I
don’t know how effective it is.

Imagine you’re having a party with friends. Just a regular party.

Now imagine a uniformed policeman says “I’m just going to attend your party
hold this tape recorder. Don’t worry about me. You won’t have to interact with
me. I’ll just hang out and sit there. You aren’t in trouble at all. I’m doing
it in everyone’s house.”

Would your behavior change? Would you be slightly nervous? Will people truly
let their guard down?

That’s exactly what surveillance is. Except we don’t see that cop in the room
so it’s hard for us to imagine.

------
dkns
Would they be fine with random dude sitting in their kitchen watching them
cook and what they put into fridge and take from it? Would they be fine with
that dude watching their spouse, friends and kids too?

I think easiest way to get point of privacy to people is through their kids.
Are they fine with some random people gathering a lot of data about their
kids?

Besides all the analogies you have the right to privacy. Nobody should violate
it just as nobody should violate your freedom, etc.

------
jannyfer
I myself didn’t care what information was collected about me. I liked the idea
of having a smart digital assistant that knew more about me so I was fine
offering up my info.

Then I realized that companies tracking me might financially cost me. Maybe it
doesn’t happen now, but if an airline knows I really need to get to my mother
across the world because they know there’s been a family death, they can
charge me more? That thought made it click why I care about privacy.

~~~
setzer22
This airline example has helped me convince many people that online privacy
matters.

------
kaybe
I have enough of other people's secrets to protect even if I've got nothing to
hide. Other people's secrets are not mine to reveal.

Who is secretly pregnant, who is gay or bi and travelling in areas where that
is bad, who is cheating, medical history, information about smaller law
transgressions.. All of these topics and more are taboo on electronic media
for me.

------
superfad
They may not care about their own privacy but they should care about privacy
online as a whole because there are most definitely people who have legitimate
reasons for privacy such as journalists, activists or politicians. If they
don't care about online privacy ask them if they also don't care about racism
because they are not black or a minority.

------
austincheney
Have them read this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_security)

Relate to them how how little bits of data on Facebook is exactly the same
exploitation vector for scams that enemies use in warfare (no exaggeration, it
is literally the same).

~~~
Freak_NL
Look at the page you are linking to though; it starts off with twentieth
century propaganda posters — and just read that first paragraph!

Their response will be that they are not a target for such scams. They'll say
they don't have any enemies. That they only share their holiday pictures after
they get back (so criminals won't know that they are away, they're not
stupid). OpSec? They'll kindly let you know that it doesn't apply to them.

And besides, admitting that leaving your private data all over the place means
you'll be tracked, manipulated, monetized, and cloistered from anything
outside of your comfortable bubble, would also mean accepting that the vast
majority of society got it wrong.

Try overcoming that cognitive barrier.

------
vhb
I tell them about this study I've read a few years ago: "it's possible
accurately to predict divorces 18 months ahead using credit cards history".
Then, I explain to them how much do fb/google/verizon knows about them. This
is usually enough to get them to understand why privacy is so important.

------
rinchik
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something in them which will hang him." \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu)

------
0x4f3759df
Tell people everything is sprayed with pesticides, and they respond "well I
have to eat something".

Being aware of something isn't much help, they have to take action, so what
action is required? Firefox? Linux? Tor?

If you enumerated all the steps they need to take, the effort required might
start to seem unreasonable.

------
duckMuppet
I'd ask you what are you trying to hide..

Seriously though, this is a good read that still rings true. The author does a
lot with both privacy and surveillance..

[https://www.danielsolove.com/nothing-to-
hide/](https://www.danielsolove.com/nothing-to-hide/)

------
petraeus
The most correct answer is in fact, yes I do have something to hide from you.
All this reasoning and rationalizing is a distraction from that main point. I
have stuff I dont want other people to know, and there is nothing wrong with
that.

------
danieltillett
Lots of good responses here so I will add a tangent. I have often wondered
what it would be like if we had total openness and everything everyone did and
said was recorded and available to everyone. Would it be a nightmare or not?

~~~
gargravarr
I'm thinking of something along the lines of 'The Invention of Lying' but I
don't think I can imagine anything worse...

~~~
danieltillett
It would certainly be very different. Everybody could lie, but probably nobody
would given how easy it would be to check. It is certainly a thought I will
explore as the consequences don't appear obvious.

------
davimack
I would ask whether they would like a future employer to know they'd Googled
the address of a Marijuana dispensary. Or their employer to know that they'd
looked at [insert kink here] porn.

------
g105b
I have nothing to hide about my bathroom activity, but I'd feel uneasy having
a Dump Indicator Light installed above my front door.

------
originalsimba
You're wasting your time arguing with people like that.

Explain the facts and if they choose to stand naked in the street wearing a
"kick me" sign then that's their choice. (just an expression)

------
beloch
Ask them:

"Why are you wearing pants? Are you hiding some kind of grotesque deformation
under there?"

Then tell them they can be a data-nudist if they really want to, but that's
not how you like doing things.

------
br41nslug
I always use the holocaust argument where nobody cared who knew their religion
they had nothing to hide, ppl dont realise how horribly seemingly harmless
data can be abused.

------
herbst
When the nazis took power in some countries and they could just get out
official lists about who is jew and who isn't.

------
OliverJones
May I suggest reminding people of Martin Niemöller's famous statement post
WWII? It begins "When [they] came for the socialists, I remained silent. I was
not a socialist." It ends, "When they came for me, there was no one left to
speak out."

This exaggerates the downside of handing over lots of information to a third
party to use however they please. But it points out the assumption that "I",
whoever "I" happens to be, am somehow privileged above "them." It's remarkably
easy for "I" to turn to "them."

~~~
gargravarr
Ah, you beat me to it, I quoted it as well.

------
hprotagonist
“so, show me your deductions on your taxes for the last decade. no reason,
really, i’m just curious...”

------
daedalbug
"You many not have something to hide, but you have something to protect"

------
acconrad
Just ask them to post their social security number and credit cards.

------
known
Will you disclose how much money you've in your bank a/c

------
rajacombinator
In this day and age you should be able to convince them pretty easily by
saying imagine Trump/Hillary (choose according to their anti preference) has
access to this data and uses it to surpress dissent.

------
wakeywakeywakey
"I do."

~~~
cJ0th
yeah, pretty much this. The problem with people willing to share everything is
that they don't realize they're also sharing data about other people. Classic
example would be address books that many apps are allowed to read.This can be
dangerous for journalists or whistle blower as it becomes easier to infer
their whereabouts.

The more general problem is that social media gives away a high resolution
model of how a certain society is functioning. The danger here is that someone
else knows more about a group of people than the members themselves. Anyone
who gets hold of the data can use it as a great foundation for social
engineering. Be it rulers of countries that slipped into dictatorship, black
hat hackers or terrorists.

------
harry8
Shhh, adults are talking.

------
nabc45
If you need to post this here because you can't come up with a good response
yourself, it's because they're right. And no, I'm not trying to troll

