7 ms·

Questions for people with nothing to hide: 1. Have you ever had an abortion? 2. Have you ever cheated on your husband / wife? 3. Are you currently looking fo

• stfu 13y ago
  Apparently those people in the twitter feed are fine with getting registered and living under high transparency. My suggestion would be a crowd funded campaign to doxx each one of them. Would be happy to donate a few hours of my time tracing their real names. With some funded capital we could buy and publish for each one a personal background check sort of a personal gift to free them from the burden of anonymity.
  • mehwoot 13y ago
    An internet campaign by privacy advocates to shame those people who expressed an opinion. That's a great idea. You should totally do it. This won't backfire or be hypocritical in any way shape or form.
    • stfu 13y ago
      I don't understand in how far this is an act of shaming. If I walk around the pool and tell people that I like to get thrown into the pool I expect somebody to throw me into the pool.
      • mehwoot 13y ago
        Each of those tweets I can see says "nothing to hide from the government". You are not the government. Secondly, the fact that you would stoop to doing exactly the sort of thing you oppose, because these people are on the other side of a debate, shows exactly the sort of thinking that creates these problems in the first place. Even if they explicitly asked for it, which they didn't, you still shouldn't do it if you believe it is a thing that shouldn't be done to people.
        • randallsquared 13y ago
          Even the staunchest privacy advocates don't use privacy to mean that people shouldn't be able to share their information with others, as far as I'm aware. Therefore, a privacy advocate searching for and publishing information about people who've explicitly given permission is certainly not doing anything that they believe "shouldn't be done to people".
          • mehwoot 13y ago
            Explain to me then what the purpose of collecting all the public data about these people and publishing it would be.
            • zxcdw 13y ago
              Do you really not know, or do you just act dumb? To make people realize the possible consequences of surveillance. One of the assumptions is that the people aren't completely aware of the extent of surveillance. They assume it's simple as "someone listening to my phone call to my mom" or something as innocent. Something like that hardly has consequences for them, but something like piblishing their private information and data surely has. If they have nothing to hide, they should be all okay with this. If they aren't however... then they should not be supporting surveillance. What did I miss?
  • wslh 13y ago
    Apparently those people in the twitter feed are fine with getting registered and living under high transparency. I suggest the NSA to record them having sex to see how clean they are. Obviously the videos will be encryped so only intelligence agencies can watch them.
  • tripzilch 13y ago
    DOXX THEM IN THE NAME OF PRIVACY! :-/ congratulations, you just stooped to the very same level of counter-productive-intelligence as those who are orchestrating the transparent monitoring of our society.
  • anonymfus 13y ago
    Most frightening thing is that some of these people really don't have anything to hide. Just out of curiosity I went to the blog of one of the first mentioned twitter users (https://twitter.com/MeaniePants/status/342430468442042369 https://twitter.com/MeaniePants/status/342430468442042369 ) and found photos and stories about toilet training of her child. WTF. >I also think it's histerical that I put a pic of Lily pooping on Facebook and it received the most likes ever. I think even more than her birth photo or Roman's homecoming pics.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    • meowface 13y ago
      Fantastic job pulling their names from their Twitter profiles and putting them next to their Twitter usernames! I can't even imagine the amount of work that must've gone into such an effort.
• wslh 13y ago
  Studies say that N % of people who do items X1, X2, ... Xm are very dangerous to the society. Are you saying that you don't believe in statistics?
• hzay 13y ago
  Until a few weeks ago, my answer to all these questions would have been on the safe side (except for 11 which is very open-ended). I think, most people who say "I have nothing to hide, so why should I worry about privacy?" have a list like this one to fall back upon. The question of whether you have anything to hide is really the same as whether you're willing to put everything that you have ever thought under legal scrutiny. It's not about being on the "correct social and legal side" in all the tame scenarios that one has dreamed up.
• tripzilch 13y ago
  That twitter bot should mix those questions with the automatic retweets. (and, just curious, but why does it matter if the local policeman is 23 years old? :) )
  • scotty79 13y ago
    Young people tend to be less aware/accepting of morally shady things normal people do as they had less time themselves to make mistakes.
    • icebraining 13y ago
      Frankly, I find that very hard to believe.
      • scotty79 13y ago
        Why?
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• oelmekki 13y ago
  I think the most embarrassing question you could ask all of them is : could you give me a summary of the last three century of History ?
• thomseddon 13y ago
  One important thing to recognize is that: "You can read my text/call logs" !== "You and the rest of the world can know everything about me" So someone saying they "have nothing to hide" doesn't really mean they would answer all the above question publicly, but rather there is no electronic record/evidence of anything they know they want to keep private. And, as another point of discussion, whilst the matters raised in those questions may be deeply personal for many people, frankly I wouldn't be concerned if my answers to those questions were in the public domain.
  • Gonzih 13y ago
    Any data can become public at some point.
  • finnw 13y ago
    Some of these questions can be guessed at by data mining from your email and social network data.
    • legutierr 13y ago
      All of these can likely be found out by having access to your financial records, medical/insurance records, telephone metadata, texts, and voicemail records in addition to email and social network data.
  • bad_user 13y ago
    One other important thing to recognize: many people have leaked confidential/private info, even without them realizing it. Example: the SMS messages I send to my wife tend to contain more sensitive info than the Facebook messages I publish for the whole world to see. This is because I trust my wife and when she's the sole recipient of a message, I tend to be more honest and open-minded with her than I am with the rest of the world. Plus, she knows me well enough to interpret my thoughts into context, whereas other people can only interpret my written thoughts out of context. N.B. the recipients of a message do matter for the enclosed content ;-) And yet another important thing to recognize: even if you know that your communications may be wire-tapped, you still feel safe because why in the world would those in power be interested about your private life? Example: when I send an SMS message to my wife, I know that my mobile career may record every message I send. It doesn't usually bother me, since I'm not doing or thinking of illegal activities, but then again, this may be a decision that will come back haunting me (and I'll stop here since I'm trying really hard to avoid Godwin's law).
• Ygg2 13y ago
  You can simply ask them do you go everywhere naked? If not then they have something to hide. Literally.
  • icebraining 13y ago
    Clothes serve many purposes beyond hiding your body. Protection from dirt and weather conditions, social signaling, etc.
    • Ygg2 13y ago
      It's a hyperbole to demonstrate that hiding certain things isn't an illegal or a even bad thing. In fact I'd say its overall better for all involved. And for the record there is always a way to do all the listed things while being completely more or less naked (transparent clothing, frequent showerings, small discreet tatto, etc).
      • throwmeaway33 13y ago
        I think you're example is a good example of how weak the arguments for privacy are. All I see are hyperbolic examples. My favorite ones are where people try to bring up how the lack of privacy lead to horrors like NAZI Germany or Iran as if the US is somehow comparable. And they say "But government can change!". Only in la-la land is the US government going to turn into Iran. No developed country in the past 50 years (even ones where privacy is not considered a god given right) has slipped back in totalitarianism.
        • icebraining 13y ago
          Why would you need totalitarianism? The government which gave Turing the choice between imprisonment and hormonal treatment using injections for the crime of "indecency" wasn't totalitarian. Developed countries - and the US in particular - violate basic human rights regularly. You don't need to imagine hypothetical scenarios. That said, I believe this is all irrelevant. Privacy is an end in itself, it doesn't need to be justified.
        • 13y ago
• natch 13y ago
  Nah, I'd go straight for: Please list the names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, and any private information you may have access to (SSN, credit card number, banking details) of your mother, father, brothers, sisters, children, and any other family members. Might as well throw in all the info you have for any friends and acquaintances too. And their private photos, too, because you don't care about hiding things that people have shared with you in confidence, right? You must not, because you said you have nothing to hide.
• lmirosevic 13y ago
  Yes. And because you know the questions to ask means you have too. And so since we both have it makes it OK.
• matteodepalo 13y ago
  I don't have nothing to hide from the government. This doesn't mean everyone I know should know everything about me. I am just a number for people collecting information about me, whereas for YOU or anyone in my social circle, certain kind of information can change my reputation and the way I'm seen by my peers forever. Stop equating "the government is doing statistics about people and keeping that information confidential" with "everyone should know everything about anyone". If you think the problem is that the government could leak that information, anyone that is currently handling your data (e.g. Google) could.
  • lolcraft 13y ago
    > I don't have nothing to hide from the government. Imagine some crazy, hard-line politicians get elected and make a law that retroactively throws to jail women who get abortions. Or homosexuals. Or maybe it's a party that decides the 1% is due for some rich-shaming, who knows. Last century it was communists, and maybe the USA will feel nostalgia for that again[1] but, who knows who will paranoia strike tomorrow? This fellow at the NSA could be a very honest person that votes, say Remocratic, and you're a Depublican senator who's had an affair, so naturally this pious person decides to blow some whistles, should this pseudo-crime go unpunished. Not to mention bullshit non-crimes like smoking pot, drug consumption, or possession of child pornography. They get your pot dealer, now they've got you, and so the government gets to enforce a ridiculous law much more tyrannically. > If you think the problem is that the government could leak that information, anyone that is currently handling your data (e.g. Google) could. Not everybody is okay with Google doing that either. That's why I, as an European, support stricter, better privacy laws at the European Union level. [1] Don't laugh, it has happened. Some months ago, many Chinese nationals were fired from the NASA HQ in Virginia, then arrested, at the request of the Virginian senator. Their crime? Being Chinese, and thus suspects of espionage. Imagine what levels of paranoia this new technology could enable, if put in the wrong hands.
    • matteodepalo 13y ago
      > Imagine some crazy, hard-line politicians get elected and make a law that retroactively throws to jail women who get abortions. Or homosexuals. Or maybe it's a party that decides the 1% is due for some rich-shaming, who knows. There are 2 possibilities here: 1) Democracy failed hard allowing MANY crazy people to get power without people allowing it. 2) The majority of people actually want those things and they vote for a candidate that will do them. If that's not ok for you (it isn't for me too) then you are questioning democracy itself. Both are things that are not going to happen. If they will, I'll just leave my country of residence. > Not to mention bullshit non-crimes like smoking pot, drug consumption, or possession of child pornography. Dura lex sed lex. There is nothing you can do here, except for voting for candidates that promise to remove these laws. Until their election, if you think you're above a single law, then you entitle yourself to be above ANY law. If this argument was to be applied by everyone our society would descend into chaos.
• networked 13y ago
  Great list! I tried to think of a persuasive, semi-automated way to use it and came up with this: First, make a website where you would log in with Facebook or Google (and optionally give your Twitter handle) and then give answers to questions like the ones above. Filled-in answer forms would be stored and then (by default) accessible to the public (through a search form and a "latest" column on the front page). Include a small checkbox at the bottom to keep the filled-in form hidden from the public but available to the government upon request. Now, when people say they "have nothing to hide" to you on-line do the following: 1. Link them to that website. 2. At this point they will most likely try to qualify their initial statement with a "from the government". 3. Bring to their attention the checkbox at the bottom. 4. "But the owner of the website might sell the data anyway!" 5. You are now at a good starting point for an in-depth conversation about privacy ("How is this different from Facebook?"). Of course, this is rather manipulative and could become obnoxiously overused, but would you rather this tool existed or not? Feel free also to suggest your improvements.
  • saraid216 13y ago
    Here's a model you can work off: http://www.trialbytimeline.org.nz/ http://www.trialbytimeline.org.nz/
• jmilloy 13y ago
  For me, this misses the point. Regardless of whether or not I have nothing to hide now, that doesn't mean I won't have anything to hide in the future. We would you give the government a permanent lease on your personal details into the indefinite future? Even if you stay exactly the same, the government can change.
• Tosh108 13y ago
  Talking about the content of what they might know is a distraction of the real problem. If there is too much power and information with one organization (the goverment in this case) bad things happen to individuals that go against these organizations. This a problem that's not exclusive to police states, it also affect western democracies and corporations. For the US right now the individuals at stake are the ones that go against and or scare the status quo: whisteblowers, hackers, political activists, etc. If you want a concrete example the post on HN from just a few hours ago is a great one: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7 https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/15-7
• alexvr 13y ago
  I just realized how scary Google is.
• darwinGod 13y ago
  Nice list- I am not sure if an equivalent law exists in any other country- but in India, if you have attempted suicide (and survive),you will be arrested!
• stefanix 13y ago
  Good start to think about "nothing to hide". In addition there is no way of saying what becomes sensitive in the future and who might have access to the data. When pre-nazi germany collected religious census data it wasn't with the intention to supply the nazis with an efficient database to crack down on jews and other minorities. What can comfortably be public changes tremendously over time and who gets access to the data. The question to ask yourself is really how much risk is tolerable that some data point will be used in the future to discriminate against you. The other concern is the conformity this attitude breads. Do you really think everybody should refrain from testing the boundaries and adjust their actions to whatever the mainstream is? This way "nothing to hide" is an easy attitude. What kind of society actively discourages edgy thinkers and innovators and where does this lead to politically and culturally? Certainly not a place I want to be part of.
  • stefanix 13y ago
    Nice, the atlantic just wrote an article along the same line. Even if you fully trust the current administration, why make yourself vulnerable to future ones ... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/all-the-infrastructure-a-tyrant-would-need-courtesy-of-bush-and-obama/276635/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/all-the-...
• capnrefsmmat 13y ago
  Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't. Privacy is a way of restricting the government's power over you. Giving the government the power to read your email, tap your phone, and record your porn usage isn't bad simply because it's embarrassing. After all, the data will likely only be seen by a computer. But it gives the government enormous power to make decisions about you -- decisions about whether you may take a commercial airline flight, get a security clearance, get a job, or even be indefinitely detained -- without your knowledge or consent, and without you knowing how they make the decisions. Recall the stories of people getting on the no-fly list with no appeals process and no way to find out what information had been used to put them there. In short, a lack of privacy gives the government the power to be even less transparent in its decision-making, and gives it yet more power over its citizens. It's not a question of discovering your fetishes or being embarrassed, and we shouldn't act as though having nothing to hide really is an excuse. There's a rather good paper I can recommend on the subject: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 (I've posted this several times over the past few months, so this is half self-plagiarism)
  • dclowd9901 13y ago
    One could easily imagine a false correlative impacting your life negatively and unfairly: If you have security clearance, the government is very interested in the private details of your life. For instancw, the assumption is people who cheat on their significant others are more likely to be a security threat for many reasons. They don't even need to prove it; just find anything from that point to call your character into question. How would you like to have your entire life become more difficult because of a misinterpretation of correlation/causation?
  • homeomorphic 13y ago
    > Responses like these just legitimize the idea that privacy is about hiding things. It isn't. Privacy is a way of restricting the government's power over you. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I'd also point out that most people do in fact have something to hide. So not only is it wrong on principle for the government to invade your privacy - massive surveillance could end up becoming a real, practical problem for many people. Both are important.
• Nekorosu 13y ago
  And don't forget to attach your sex tapes if you have any.
• cunac 13y ago
  Sure you realize that audience is way smaller then what you imply and you did answer to most of those questions to your doctor/lawyer etc.. Try to compare apples to apples
• mrkuchbhi 13y ago
  A relevant article..has been posted earlier here ... "Why privacy matters even if you have nothing to hide?" ...http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...
• al_biglan 13y ago
  Along the same lines: 1) Govt asks: Have you ever committed a crime? and waits for your response 2) Then asks: Have you ever jaywalked/gone faster than posted speed/etc? (any other "common" crime) If you answered "no" to 1) and "yes" to 2) then, congrats! You've committed a felony (perjury) in the US. Even if you've done nothing else wrong, you can go to jail. Also: Always take the 5th... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc (especially in light of infractions against the 4th)
  • guiomie 13y ago
    speeding is a not a crime.
• paul9290 13y ago
  Uh well probably the majority of us would answer yes to many or some of those questions and you know what it would show that were all the same ... HUMAN!
• gmays 13y ago
  While I don't necessarily condone this, it is an interesting thought. Social motivation (i.e. what people think about us) is one of the most powerful motivations in the world. How would the world change if everyone knew everything? Would we be motivated to be better people? What if everyone's credit score was public or everyone knew how much time people spent on Facebook, watching TV, or similar activities? Would we become better? Imagine if political and business leaders were elected on such characteristics, the truth. What if everyone was known for who they really were? Would crime and corruption go down? Would there ever be another war if people understood each other better? It'd sure make dating easier...do you really want to start a life with this person now that you know what they are? Do you want this person to be the mother/father of your children? The bar would certainly be lower, because nobody is perfect and everyone has secrets. Would the truth be beautiful once it’s universal? People who lived lives of quiet desperation (more than we think) would find out how many other people are just like them. Would people stop being ashamed of who they are? Would rates of mental illness, suicide, and depression plummet? Would the world be better? I assure you it'd be more compassionate. People would be less likely to judge people based on unrealistic standards while quietly ignoring their own shortcomings. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20 years we saw an 'Open' organization where people opt-in to share everything about themselves and make everything public. Maybe it'd be cathartic, maybe it wouldn't catch on, but with enough critical mass the social pressure would be interesting to see (i.e. how those running for political office are pressured to release past tax filings). An interesting thought.
• LnxPrgr3 13y ago
  It's funny—my boss has wished me luck on interviews, and people I barely know know I'm on an anti-depressant. The fact I've made an attempt on my own life is posted publicly on HN. As far as I know, I'm also absolutely uninteresting to any 3-letter agencies. I'm still not a fan of omnipresent surveillance of my phone's activity… or any other activity, for that matter. What does it really take to become interesting to these guys, and how might that impact my life? Is political speech critical of, say, the collection of citizens' phone metadata enough to catch their interest? Is unknowingly associating with someone they find interesting enough? Knowingly associating? In an ideal world, if any of these things subject me to additional scrutiny, once I turned out not to be a legitimate threat, that'd be the end of it. I wouldn't even know anyone had been watching. But does it ever go further, even when it shouldn't? How are we supposed to know when everything's done in secret?
  • auctiontheory 13y ago
    Don't know where in the world you are, but based on the information you've posted in the first sentence, you would never be able to purchase individual health insurance in the US. That means, among other things, no leaving your employer (and employer-provided insurance) to pursue your entrepreneurial dreams, unless you want to go without insurance altogether, or get it through a spouse.
• ceautery 13y ago
  1. no; 2. no; 3. yes; 4. no; 5. no; 6. no; 7. no; 8. no; 9. yes; 10. yes - as far as I know, you either love someone or you don't, I don't think it comes in degrees.; 11. yes; 12. no; 13. no; 14. no; 15. yes, but [array of excuses]; 16. no; 17. none; 18. Yes, but not intentionally [kitchen job for 4 years] 19. no; 20. no; 21. No, just indifferent. Why is the policeman 23 years old? Seems like a strange number to pull out of a hat. Also I'm pretty sure lying on your CV is illegal - that would be some sort of fraud, wouldn't it?
• madaxe 13y ago
  My uncle tried this argument. I proposed that he post a photo of himself naked on his facebook wall. Funnily, he demurred.
• shurcooL 13y ago
  Here's the thing. If it's only YOUR answers that can be made public and the entire world is expected to scrutinize them, you will want to keep it private. But if lots of people's answers are public, you will quickly see that everyone... is just human. The things we consider private and embarrassing are absolutely common and normal. It's absolutely normal to be abnormal. It's normal to be average. It's okay to have weird fantasies, other people have weird fantasies too. Everyone takes a shit. It's the imbalance of information release that is more upsetting.
• billiamram 13y ago
  According to your quiz, I have nothing to hide, but I'm still a strong privacy advocate. Privacy to me is all about context and understanding the consequences of your actions. If I run naked through Times Square, I shouldn't have any reasonable expectation of physical privacy, but if I whisper to a friend I would. Either way the important factor in both scenarios is that your expectation of privacy aligns with reality. As for context, specifically with regards to prism, if I dial a wrong number that happens to belong to a terrorist, I may find myself guilty by association, with the burden of proof of innocence in my own hands. Quickly hanging up and dialing a similar number after might not be sufficient defense since that could be a strategy terrorists use to cover their tracks.
  • ansgri 13y ago
    It could be an interesting idea for terrorists to terrorize people this way: just distribute their numbers and see Gov't do their work.
• marchdown 13y ago
  That's far from the only reason to encourage privacy. I don't really know how to respond to here. I believe that I see your point, but even though I wouldn't mind my answers to that questionnaire being made public, I still feel that both communal and personal interests of members of society would benefit from institutional pressure in support of privacy, and strong crypto for that matter.
• pkulak 13y ago
  I wasn't aware that this controversy was about the government publishing citizens' most private personal secrets on the internet. You're right, this is a whole lot different!
• D_Alex 13y ago
  Ehh... this is all relevant, but indirect. How about: 22. What is your credit card number, expiry date and security code? And on the subject of "nothing to hide from the government": the government in United States is - still - pretty good. But the trend, the trend is a worry!