65
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (scholarship.law.gwu.edu)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/privacy@programming.dev
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A bit dated and lengthy, but nevertheless a great read.

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgment and intentions are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    A great comeback, however, the root of the nothing to hide argument is itself flawed, as was written in the article - that is the point.

    Understanding privacy as I have set forth reveals the flaw of the nothing to hide argument at its roots. Many commentators who respond to the argument attempt a direct refutation by trying to point to things that people would want to hide. But the problem with the nothing to hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. Agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide. As Bruce Schneier aptly notes, the nothing to hide argument stems from a faulty “premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.” 75 The deeper problem with the nothing to hide argument is that it myopically views privacy as a form of concealment or secrecy. But understanding privacy as a plurality of related problems demonstrates that concealment of bad things is just one among many problems caused by government programs such as the NSA surveillance and data mining. In the categories in my taxonomy, several problems are implicated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Honestly I do not think it’s a very good paper. The end conclusion is essentially “it’s ok if there’s a warrant”. I’m sorry but no. If it’s the government doing it, it’s one thing, but this completely avoids any discussion of private companies collecting every single piece of data they possibly can on you to sell.

    And the lawyers that somehow lost the argument on whether spam mail harms people is astounding. “I could have gotten a letter telling me I had an inheritance, but I get so much spam mail it could have gotten lost. It’s impossible to know the extent of the harms I’ve endured due to the amount my data has been sold.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The end conclusion is essentially “it’s ok if there’s a warrant”

    I think it's a fair compromise. Let's not be naive, there's lots of evil in the world. As was stated in the article: "This is a mechanism of oversight—it forces government officials to justify their suspicions to a neutral judge or magistrate before engaging in the tactic."

    If it’s the government doing it, it’s one thing, but this completely avoids any discussion of private companies collecting every single piece of data they possibly can on you to sell.

    Data collection falls under a different category of privacy issues, than government surveillance, as he was pointing out in his article, so conflating them is unhelpful.

    And the lawyers that somehow lost the argument on whether spam mail harms people is astounding. “I could have gotten a letter telling me I had an inheritance, but I get so much spam mail it could have gotten lost. It’s impossible to know the extent of the harms I’ve endured due to the amount my data has been sold.”

    Not sure what you're on about here, wasn't mentioned there at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If it’s the government doing it, it’s one thing, but this completely avoids any discussion of private companies collecting every single piece of data they possibly can on you to sell.

    Data collection falls under a different category of privacy issues, than government surveillance, as he was pointing out in his article, so conflating them is unhelpful.

    It doesn’t though, since the government can now just purchase that data. It’s no longer considered a search since a private company did it of their own accord, at least in the U.S.

    So the government is just bypassing all these protections and just buying the data outright.

    And the lawyers that somehow lost the argument on whether spam mail harms people is astounding. “I could have gotten a letter telling me I had an inheritance, but I get so much spam mail it could have gotten lost. It’s impossible to know the extent of the harms I’ve endured due to the amount my data has been sold.”

    Not sure what you're on about here, wasn't mentioned there at all.

    A similar problem surfaces in another case, Smith v. Chase Manhattan
Bank.
99 A group of plaintiffs sued Chase Manhattan Bank for selling
customer information to third parties in violation of its privacy policy,
which stated that the information would remain confidential. The court
held that even presuming these allegations were true, the plaintiffs could
not prove any actual injury:
[T]he “harm” at the heart of this purported class action, is that class members
were merely offered products and services which they were free to decline.
This does not qualify as actual harm.
The complaint does not allege any single instance where a named plaintiff or
any class member suffered any actual harm due to the receipt of an unwanted
telephone solicitation or a piece of junk mail.100

    From the paper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    You have got nothing to hide until definition of what is illegal changes abruptly over night and we have seen it can do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •