
Ask HN: What are the real, non-hyped consequences of losing privacy/tracking? - air7
The topic of privacy and tracking resonates with many here on HN, and is discussed frequently.<p>However it seems to me that comments are often an expression of sentiment or principle (e.g &quot;I don&#x27;t like it that G&#x2F;FB know everything about me&quot; &#x2F; &quot;If it&#x27;s free you are the product&quot; &#x2F; &quot;Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither&quot; etc vs. &quot;I don&#x27;t care because I have nothing to hide&quot;).<p>I think it&#x27;d be helpful to consider what are actual (or potential) real implications of having your personal data online and in the hands of big companies&#x2F;government. This can help show the real picture and judge for one&#x27;s self if the pros outweigh the cons.<p>A few obvious ones are:
- If you do&#x2F;buy&#x2F;search for illegal things, the police can find you.
- In a totalitarian regime, if you express opposing thoughts, the government can find you.
- You will be shown extremely targeted ads &#x2F; personalized recommendations.<p>What are some specific, non-principle concerns we should have (today or down the slippery slope) regarding privacy?
======
patio11
If you have ubiquitous records of your behavior then, in the event of
adversarial legal process, you will routinely be compelled to produce a very
large subsection of those records, and you will find that a poorly considered
moment N years ago will play very poorly in a courtroom when divorced from
every other moment in the last N years.

This isn't a crazy dystopian future; this is the routine practice of law in US
corporations. If you start a company, you will be advised to train your
employees on how to avoid causing $500k judgments while operating under the
assumption of ubiquitous post-hoc surveillance of all written communications.

Of note: utterances which would not have caused your lawyer to say "I
recommend against you saying that in writing" when they were originally
committed to a spinning platter may not be zero-risk in e.g. five years.

------
DarkKomunalec
This is one of those concerns:
[http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-
pre-...](http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-team-of-pre-teens-
found-whisteblower-using-metadata/8113668)

I think Snowden put it best: "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." \- even if you have
nothing to say, you no longer get to listen to those who would have otherwise
been able to speak.

Not only does surveillance increase the risks to you if you're a
whistleblower, it also deprives you of all the information potential
whistleblowers would have provided, before the increased risk of getting
caught convinced them to stay silent.

And you may have "nothing to hide" (untrue for >90% of the population, but
lets go with it), but many people doing good work, that you will benefit from,
will be severely hampered by surveillance. People such as investigative
reporters, whistleblowers, various activist lawyers investigating e.g.
employee/prisoner mistreatment or environmental contamination by negligent
companies, etc.

------
rmc
There are totally legal things you can buy which, if revealed publically, can
cause someone massive negative harm. Which means a significant percentage of
people will be willing to pay to keep them a secret. Any site which _stores_
these details is now open to attack, since their database is worth money.

Some specific examples:

* Someone who is publicly seen as an evangelical Christian buying Richard Dawkins books. * A closeted gay person buying any pro-LGBT book/film. * A woman buying sex toys. * An elementary school teacher who buys pornography. * Almost absolutely medical thing. (Think of a blackmail opportunities from the calendar of a therapist or their notes).

 _If_ websites/shops _don 't_ store this data, then their database is worth
much less.

------
tomkarho
I don't think the fact how knowledge of the privacy and tracking changes
individual behavior is brought up enough.

With the knowledge that we are constantly watched I choose my words on and
offline more carefully. I try to keep some more radical opinions to myself
despite them being neither illegal nor worth much attention anyways due to the
fear that they might be either now or some day interpreted as opinions worth
persecution. This in turn eventually leads to constantly living in fear of
voicing your opinions truthfully and without filtering and gives way to
society where thought policing is a reality and democracy cannot function in
reality.

