TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why privacy is important, and having “nothing to hide” is irrelevant

697 点作者 synesso超过 9 年前

41 条评论

tobbyb超过 9 年前
I think the tech crowd is in denial about their role in surveillance.<p>We expect professionals to behave ethically. Doctors and companies working on genetics and cloning for instance are expected to behave ethically and have constraints placed on their work. And with consequences for those behaving unethically.<p>Yet we have millions of software engineers working on building a surveillance society with no sense of ethics, constraints or consequences.<p>What we have instead are anachronistic discussions on things like privacy that seem oddly disconnected from 300 years of accumulated wisdom on surveillance, privacy, free speech and liberty to pretend the obvious is not obvious, and delay the need for ethical behavior and introspection. And this from a group of people who have routinely postured extreme zeal for freedom and liberty since the early 90&#x27;s and produced one Snowden.<p>That&#x27;s a pretty bad record by any standards, and indicates the urgent need for self reflection, industry bodies, standards, whistle blower protection and for a wider discussion to insert context, ethics and history into the debate.<p>The point about privacy is not you, no one cares what you are doing so an individual perspective here has zero value, but building the infrastructure and ability to track what everyone in a society is doing, and preempt any threat to entrenched interests and status quo. An individual may not need or value privacy but a healthy society definitely needs it.
评论 #10850470 未加载
评论 #10849347 未加载
评论 #10849253 未加载
评论 #10849248 未加载
评论 #10851992 未加载
评论 #10849309 未加载
评论 #10850494 未加载
评论 #10849241 未加载
评论 #10849272 未加载
评论 #10849622 未加载
评论 #10850328 未加载
评论 #10849516 未加载
评论 #10849886 未加载
评论 #10849567 未加载
评论 #10850156 未加载
raminf超过 9 年前
The issue with the &#x27;nothing to hide&#x27; argument is that it puts the burden of proof and determination of whether something is &#x27;hide-worthy&#x27; on the target of the inquiry.<p>If you subscribe to the &#x27;presumed innocent&#x27; premise of the law (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Presumption_of_innocence" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Presumption_of_innocence</a>) then the burden of proof is on the inquisitor.<p>Either you believe in presumed innocence or you don&#x27;t. Pick one.
评论 #10850160 未加载
x5n1超过 9 年前
Privacy is less important than the ability to trust your government won&#x27;t do blatantly illegal things like put innocent people behind bars, steal their money or property, when they actually know that they are innocent. The biggest problem with America is that the government can not be trusted to follow the rules, their own rules.<p>I don&#x27;t live in the US, but the stuff the government whether local, state, or federal gets away with is very scary to me. What scares me even more is how the United States encroaches on everyone else&#x27;s legal system. That&#x27;s the underlying problem. Under such governments that are actually out to get people at times without much cause breaking all sorts of rules, that&#x27;s what&#x27;s scary.<p>The type of soft totalitarianism that exists and passes as common place is very scary. And that&#x27;s really the people you should be scared of, and that&#x27;s who you really want to protect your information from. Your run of the mill government that&#x27;s actually trying to do a good job and not break its own rules, that sort of government like my government, scares me a lot less. Despite the fact that they encroach on my privacy. I know heads are going to roll if it comes out that they do things that are blatantly wrong or abusive with the information that they are collecting.<p>Not so in the US. They always have a half-ass lie that still somehow passes muster.
评论 #10848742 未加载
评论 #10851046 未加载
kmonad超过 9 年前
Whenever I read one of these articles I am wondering why the examples of WHY mass surveillance affects ME as average Joe negatively have to be so weak &#x2F; contrived:<p>For example, imagine someone convinced by the argument &quot;nothing to hide nothing to fear&quot;. Would this example convince them that in fact they do have to fear something? &quot;You might think twice about contacting or meeting people (exercising your freedom of association) who you think might become “persons of interest” to the state&quot;. I do not think so, after all, average Joe does not know such people.<p>The solution, in my experience when talking to sceptical people not convinced of the risks is talking about money. Imagine someone with the kind of knowledge we are talking about with mass surveillance. And imagine this person could inform your insurance companies. Do you still think that you have nothing to hide? One then must only show that data is never &quot;safe&quot; and could always be &quot;leaked&quot; to make a very simple, everyday example of why it is not in my (average Joe&#x27;s) interest to be continuously monitored.
评论 #10849650 未加载
评论 #10882606 未加载
评论 #10849846 未加载
评论 #10849466 未加载
评论 #10850150 未加载
评论 #10850304 未加载
评论 #10849961 未加载
bitL超过 9 年前
It pains me to see that power-hungry people used most techies as useful idiots to implement their own goals - how many politicians with dirty hands are now getting on board of prime tech companies? They finally understood what technology can offer to them. It seems like the end game is who is going to control everything - those types can finally see the time when technology is sufficiently advanced to control every aspect of our lives. It seems like technology would enable a special caste above law, with power unlike anyone before them. Instead of using technology to improve living conditions of all, establishing new, unseen before, more democratic and free society, we seem to be hell bent on preserving all the nasty traits of previous societies and even doubling down on them by having almost complete control. Seems like some dystopian sci-fi novel is happening now :-(
评论 #10850820 未加载
blitzprog超过 9 年前
&quot;This affects all of us. We must care.&quot; is not an effective way of convincing someone.<p>I personally do not care about privacy. I see no reason why I should.<p>It&#x27;s just my opinion. I know other people do but please don&#x27;t generalize.
评论 #10848607 未加载
评论 #10848818 未加载
评论 #10848976 未加载
评论 #10848753 未加载
评论 #10848614 未加载
评论 #10848621 未加载
评论 #10848723 未加载
评论 #10848730 未加载
评论 #10848775 未加载
评论 #10849150 未加载
评论 #10849116 未加载
评论 #10849191 未加载
评论 #10848611 未加载
评论 #10850151 未加载
评论 #10855054 未加载
评论 #10848743 未加载
评论 #10850516 未加载
评论 #10848791 未加载
评论 #10849424 未加载
评论 #10851169 未加载
评论 #10852650 未加载
评论 #10848937 未加载
bcg1超过 9 年前
A tragicomedic irony of course is that most &quot;nothing to hide&quot; advocates demand secrecy and legal cover for their own actions. This sort of doublethink leads to things like a &quot;Freedom of Information Act&quot; in the US that provides a legal framework for concealing information that should otherwise be out in the open.<p>If you apply the &quot;nothing to hide&quot; principle to states&#x27; own actions, I can think of two possible conclusions:<p>1) It is not true that if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide (i.e., there is a legitimate right to privacy)<p>2) State actors have something to hide, so they must be doing something wrong.
Laaw超过 9 年前
I have two unrelated thoughts.<p>&quot;Chilling effect&quot; has always been a profound term for me, because I imagine the &quot;cold&quot; (numbness really) sensation a human body often senses when something truly awful (disembowlment&#x2F;dismemberment) occurs. The body&#x27;s way of protecting itself is to go &quot;cold&quot;, and in many ways that&#x27;s exactly the effect taking place here, as well.<p>There&#x27;s also an undeniable part of this conversation that rarely gets addressed simultaneously, and I&#x27;d like to see it sussed out more in concert; what about the folks who are doing Evil in these private channels? It&#x27;s unacceptable to me that TOR gets used for child pornography, and it&#x27;s unacceptable to me that my government finds out I&#x27;m gay before I come out to my family.<p>I don&#x27;t want to provide those who would do Evil any safety or quarter. I also want to give people a powerful shield to protect themselves against judgement and persecution from the public and sometimes the law.<p>We should talk about achieving <i>both</i> of these goals, but we generally don&#x27;t.
评论 #10849244 未加载
评论 #10848496 未加载
评论 #10849403 未加载
评论 #10849086 未加载
评论 #10848526 未加载
评论 #10850926 未加载
评论 #10849016 未加载
评论 #10852803 未加载
评论 #10849635 未加载
jkonowitch超过 9 年前
This issue always boils down to the LOTR argument for me: the surveillance power is too great, and no individual or group can or should be trusted with it, regardless of its actual current or potential future benefits.<p>The crux of the debate then is where to draw the line between safe and unsafe amounts of power?
评论 #10848995 未加载
评论 #10849376 未加载
exodust超过 9 年前
Very good, but it&#x27;s funny how on the &quot;why IPVanish&quot; page he links to, the first reason given for using a VPN is, to watch Netflix from any location! Oh the horror of limited localised Netflix content. We must protect ourselves. (Really it is awful, I use a VPN for that purpose too). But the point is, it doesn&#x27;t seem popular to hide metadata from ISPs with VPNs. Will it ever be popular? I&#x27;m not so sure. For good or bad, I&#x27;m suggesting most people don&#x27;t care that their IPs are recorded. Email content is not seen, nor what I type into this comment form.<p>Also, when I send an email to my friend &quot;laserpants@something.com&quot;, sure the data captures the send-to email address. But the data doesn&#x27;t know who laserpants actually is, nor does the email content get saved. I&#x27;m not saying laserpants can&#x27;t be found if the law decides to investigate, but I doubt it&#x27;s a matter of pressing a button to bring up the real name of laserpants. Especially if laserpants uses different email addresses and a shared internet.
评论 #10849066 未加载
评论 #10852259 未加载
评论 #10849269 未加载
rplnt超过 9 年前
This is an interesting post on the topic from reddit:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;changemyview&#x2F;comments&#x2F;1fv4r6&#x2F;i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to&#x2F;cd89cqr" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;changemyview&#x2F;comments&#x2F;1fv4r6&#x2F;i_beli...</a>
评论 #10851652 未加载
评论 #10851172 未加载
blfr超过 9 年前
This is correct but appeals to freedom of speech&#x2F;expression and association won&#x27;t work. People don&#x27;t believe in these any more if they ever did. They&#x27;re being paid lip service at most.<p>Both professional and amateur politicians are taking notice. &quot;We support freedom of expression, however&quot; there&#x27;s always something more important: safety, inclusivity, respect, diversity, civility...<p>We have dozens of examples, in the west, with hate speech laws, discrimination laws, mobs organizing online over some tweet, employers firing people because of offhand remarks, even opensource projects being assaulted over unrelated comments made by contributors.
hellofunk超过 9 年前
The definition of &quot;privacy&quot; very much differs significantly among different generations and cultures. Compare the Dutch to the Americans, or anyone over 35 with anyone in their teens or early 20s. There is a smaller overlap in what they all consider &quot;private&quot; than you&#x27;d at first think.
hasukimchi超过 9 年前
I really like the phrase &quot;I have nothing to hide, so I don&#x27;t care about privacy&quot; is equivalent to &quot;I have nothing to say, so I don&#x27;t care about freedom of speech&quot; .
mattlutze超过 9 年前
I forget why now, but I was reading this article[0] by Moxie Marlinspike, from 2013, just a few days ago.<p>Interesting how the same argument can take so long to take hold, and how long some truths need to be told before they gain the traction needed to make a change.<p>0: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;06&#x2F;why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;06&#x2F;why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-t...</a>
logicallee超过 9 年前
meh, I want to have my cake and eat it too. (I&#x27;m not making fun of someone, this is actually how I feel, and there is some tension between requirements.) I don&#x27;t want any surveillance whatsoever, I want to just be able to do whatever I want, jeez. To live freely. I shouldn&#x27;t even think about being watched.<p>At the same time, take something like the Dell database that was just stolen, and criminals starting to do their criminal crimes. Then I want courts to be able to flip a switch and say, you know what, if you&#x27;re brazenly stealing a private company&#x27;s database and calling its customers trying to defraud them, at some point there is some probable cause to make you stop doing that or figure out who you are. You&#x27;re not just going to stay anonymous behind a skype number while you&#x27;re defrauding people halfway across the world.<p>Also I don&#x27;t want some bitcoin asshole to pay off an old soviet general and get a nuclear bomb, just because they think it would be a fun troll to blow up a major city, trololo.<p>These aren&#x27;t theoretical concerns - ransomware, kidnapping, all these yucky things that civilized societies don&#x27;t have, all happen absent rule of law.<p>There&#x27;s a reason there wasn&#x27;t a period in the Constitution (specifically the fourth amendment) after the words &quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects shall not be violated.&quot; (Extra points for what <i>is</i> there.)<p>Even absent an anonymous Internet, way back in the eighteenth century, there were limits on privacy. Think of it like an operating system - a good kernel isn&#x27;t reading my memory contents and slowing me down, but if I start performing illegal operations I might very well get shut down :)<p>It&#x27;s not an easy line to find. Also, I don&#x27;t want tens of thousands of people employed doing this crap. It&#x27;s a minimal thing we need to live safely and sanely, not some fun snooping. Frankly I don&#x27;t see why humans even need to be involved, until crimes start getting committed and the courts are trying to figure out why or where.
评论 #10851716 未加载
Pharaoh2超过 9 年前
Personally I really think that encryption is a matter of second amendment and in the day of knowledge and communication the right to bear encryption should fall under the second amendment. Hell, the US even classifies encryption as a munition. We should be using the same argument for encryption that we are using for the right to own guns and form militias.<p>I wonder if the encryption will be recognized as a right under the second amendment by the court if it goes to that.
评论 #10849394 未加载
blaze33超过 9 年前
If you are interested in this topic, I highly recommend you read <i>Tradition of Freedom</i> by Bernanos (original title in French: <i>La France contre les robots</i>).<p>Written in 1944, there is a specific passage where he argues against this &quot;but I have nothing to hide!&quot; argument, only criminals benefits from hiding, right ? He talks about how a simple citizen who never had trouble with the law should stay perfectly free to conceal his identity whenever he likes for whatever reason, and laments how this very idea already died.<p>The extract is available online [1] in French, the google translation [2] is not that good.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.books.fr&#x2F;quand-bernanos-predisait-une-societe-sous-surveillance&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.books.fr&#x2F;quand-bernanos-predisait-une-societe-sou...</a> [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;translate.google.com&#x2F;translate?hl=en&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.books.fr%2Fquand-bernanos-predisait-une-societe-sous-surveillance%2F" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;translate.google.com&#x2F;translate?hl=en&amp;sl=auto&amp;tl=en&amp;u...</a>
ozim超过 9 年前
Thing is that everyone have things to hide. I think there should be extensive list of what you have to hide and reasons why.<p>I would start with two:<p>-salary : thieves, kidnappers (do you really trust that everyone in law enforcement is trustworthy they can cooperate with thieves)<p>check your contract, you might get even fired because you leaked your salary, and it is your duty to keep it secret and explaining that some hacker did that does not matter<p>-contacts : maybe someone will be stalking your friend and he might get access to your friend because you were hacked. You also should not share your friends mails and numbers without their consent.<p>They might be at least angry at you because you shared their contact info. ------------------ Maybe you guys have better or more ideas.<p>But nothing to hide applies to hermit on top of the mountain. If someone thinks otherwise he is an as<i></i>*le because he does not think about people around him.
SFjulie1超过 9 年前
Wishing privacy on the internet is like wishing no turmoil while shagging during a massive religious events of paranoid gunned puritans.<p>If privacy is such a problem for some it is not a technological problem, it is a political problem. If so, people concerned should make their revolution in an appropriate place: the real world, and let internet stay a public media.<p>PS noticed another fun topic there are blacklisted keywords on HN, like F words. Isn&#x27;t censorship more concerning than privacy on a media? And funnily enough all the &quot;lite&quot; censorship nowadays are first about sex and gross words. Are sex and slang that dangerous?
评论 #10851498 未加载
评论 #10850778 未加载
评论 #10850783 未加载
sreejithr超过 9 年前
Don&#x27;t mix <i></i>misuse of private information<i></i> and <i></i>privacy<i></i>. All the &quot;chilling effects&quot; listed here are implications of misuse of private information. On the other hand, in a world where we have weapons which can single handedly wipe out whole civilizations, we need to make sure it doesn&#x27;t get used by some lunatic.<p>From that angle, a tight security apparatus (which may include surveillance), is necessary for our survival. I think we should think more about how we can prevent the &quot;misuse&quot; of private information than preventing surveillance completely.
评论 #10852056 未加载
enginn超过 9 年前
&quot;Our digital lives are an accurate reflection of our actual lives&quot;<p>Which of course presumes we have a digital life, and which of course has been proven repeatedly to not be the case. It is also not accurate.<p>Take data warehousing companies who are profiling home IP addresses and hoovering up any digital breadcrumbs people leave behind, like user agent strings, length of time spent on a page, any previous cookies stored locally on the machine: an enormous store of value for anyone who decides to purchase such information, except for the fact that it has no value.<p>The &#x27;info&#x27; exists without any context, and could even be poisoned by a small portion of users who decide to stuff the system full of disinformation to control market share or lobby for certain products.<p>Also - IPV4 addresses (now more than ever) can be attributed to several hundred people because ISPs grant a subnet to multiple customers.<p>This is not saying everything&#x27;s fine and our digital doppel is a fuzzy haze of nonsense. But it does say that privacy advocates are apt to overestimate how accurate such information is, and that the people who buy such information are finding out this too and have probably decided to pay more to other collection points to get a finer-grained doppel of some person.<p>I say let them spend more, but I will cry tears of joy when I find that money has been ill spent too and doesn&#x27;t accurately portray a person digitally.
ck2超过 9 年前
The problem is people who have never been on the wrong side of an encounter with law enforcement have no clue about why all these &quot;super tools and powers&quot; given to police, TSA, FBI etc. are so incredibly dangerous.<p>They just watch the news and get fear-mongered into thinking, oh we better arm the hell out our &quot;protectors&quot;.<p>Usually the first experience with abuse by police is enough to wake people up but if they are white and middle-class, such an encounter may take years to happen.
miguelrochefort超过 9 年前
Why don&#x27;t privacy proponents don&#x27;t go all in and just ask to get rid of the Internet? Surely, privacy is easier to maintain when communication is inefficient.<p>Perhaps that&#x27;s because privacy is actually an archaic and backward idea that maintains all of our problems alive. I can&#x27;t think of a less progressive (more conservative) idea than privacy.<p>The next most important revolution in human history will be our transition to a completely transparent society.
评论 #10852117 未加载
评论 #10850575 未加载
评论 #10850576 未加载
评论 #10850577 未加载
rubberstamp超过 9 年前
People of the U.S lost it because they allowed this to happen by &quot;not caring about it&quot;. And the whole privatized everything is bollocks. See what the costs of &quot;health care&quot;, &quot;college education&quot; and most importantly &quot;how the cops&quot; have become. Health care and education has to be free if the people in the society is to remain intelligent. Even by the scale of economics, providing with good health care for free would cost much less that what it currently costs. The police is severely lacking accountability that it much needs. Read the original article linked in here. Think about it.
mirimir超过 9 年前
OK, so now David Chaum is proposing PrivaTegrity.[0] It&#x27;s &quot;meant to be both more secure than existing online anonymity systems like Tor or I2P and also more efficient&quot;. But it includes a &quot;carefully controlled backdoor that allows anyone doing something &#x27;generally recognized as evil&#x27; to have their anonymity and privacy stripped altogether&quot;. Just exactly how the bloody hell can a backdoored design be styled as more secure than Tor and I2P?<p>There&#x27;s no fool like an old fool, as they say. Sad :(<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;david-chaum-father-of-online-anonymity-plan-to-end-the-crypto-wars&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;david-chaum-father-of-online-an...</a>
Mendenhall超过 9 年前
Many would trade their privacy for what they think is safety.
评论 #10848762 未加载
评论 #10848630 未加载
edpichler超过 9 年前
This read changed my mind. Even I don&#x27;t have nothing to hide, I need to care about my privacy.
CurtMonash超过 9 年前
Bravo!<p>I&#x27;ve been making the chilling effects argument for several years:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbms2.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;07&#x2F;08&#x2F;privacy-data-use-chilling-effects&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbms2.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;07&#x2F;08&#x2F;privacy-data-use-chilling-ef...</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbms2.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;07&#x2F;29&#x2F;very-chilling-effects&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbms2.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;07&#x2F;29&#x2F;very-chilling-effects&#x2F;</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbms2.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;14&#x2F;chilling-effects-revisited&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dbms2.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;14&#x2F;chilling-effects-revisited&#x2F;</a><p>This article makes it with reasonable, appropriate breadth.
danielam超过 9 年前
The reasons given are largely consequentialist. There are deeper philosophical reasons why privacy is important in this context. The essential reason it is important concerns the proper relationship between the individual and the state. Surveillance and intrusion violate the proper relationship and establish an improper relationship between the two. In other words, to justify the relation and thus intrusion, one hold concepts of state and individual that are anti-individualistic and place the state above the individual. The undesirable effects follow. To borrow Koneczny&#x27;s terminology, a surveillance state is move away from Latin civilization perhaps towards Byzantine civilization.
secfirstmd超过 9 年前
(<i></i><i>Apologies for the blatant plug</i><i></i>)<p>On this subject, if anyone is interested, we just launched a free, open source, Android mobile app to help people manage the complex issues of digital and physical security. It&#x27;s got simple lessons on everything from sending a secure mail to dealing with a kidnap.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.google.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;apps&#x2F;details?id=org.secfirst.umbrella" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.google.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;apps&#x2F;details?id=org.secfirst.u...</a>
bobby_9x超过 9 年前
In a recent study I read, millenials overwhelminly didn&#x27;t think that the fredom of speech should be upheld, so why would privacy?<p>Many people have already gotten in trouble or fired all based on private conversations. Most people didn&#x27;t care about the privacy implacatons, because of personal feelings.<p>I feel like our civilization has gone backwards: online mobs determine guilt and the ends justify the means.
chevas超过 9 年前
It&#x27;s government that has something to hide and it&#x27;s them I don&#x27;t trust, which is why privacy is important. I wouldn&#x27;t want government searching my home on a whim and neither my digital content because they&#x27;re the ones with the track record of planting evidence, seizing assets, and perpetuating falsehoods for their agendas.
bitL超过 9 年前
Is there any polymorphic encryption toolkit that could enable a custom encryption method tailored for your own use? Kinda like security by obscurity for encrypting your own important files by deviating from the established standard encryption schemes in order to overwhelm capabilities of Mallory&#x27;s&#x2F;Trudy&#x27;s reverse engineering?
erikb超过 9 年前
There are so many unproven ideas and theses in the first (argumenting) sentence alone.<p>Maybe privacy is a right granted by someone. But do I need to fight for all rights? Can I not trade some for some others? E.g. I don&#x27;t want to live in a completely free market, becaues in a completely free market thiefs and bullies always win. In our real life markets at least they need a lawyer&#x27;s license first, which stops some of them from succeeding.<p>Does it really underpin freedom of expression? Is complete freedom of expression something that is worth fighting for, something people want? Look at something where expression is nearly completely free: Clothes. Most people tend to wear what other people wear.<p>Free society. What is that? Why do I need it?<p>Democratic society. Doesn&#x27;t the current global development show that democracy is failing us? Every system comes to an end, and democracy certainly is behind the top of the hill.<p>I stopped reading after that sentence. If a blog post doesn&#x27;t even think about the nuances of what they are talking about, there won&#x27;t be much content anyways.<p>Just a little side note: I was in China three times now. Many people consider China very unfree, very undemocratic. But I see people there having more hope, more optimism and more opportunity to develop their dreams than we have in the west. And mobile internet is developing bigger and faster there than anywhere else, despite having nearly everything run via one mobile, government observed app: Wechat. In some regards I wonder if it is really &quot;despite&quot; government control or &quot;because&quot;.
amelius超过 9 年前
Don&#x27;t trust someone who says &quot;I have nothing to hide&quot;. And certainly don&#x27;t trust them with your secrets!
elrodeo超过 9 年前
There are very few topics where I just cannot get the point of the discussion among smart people, but this is one of them.<p>Look at the real world NOW, 15 years after all the surveillance. You still can explode bombs and kill people middle in a european capital without any encryption at all. Is this the kind of surveillance you are afraid of?<p>If you want to hide something, there are infinitely many ways to do this. No surveillance can (or ever will) read the one time pad encrypted communication. So you have (and always will have) your freedom and capabilities to hide — what&#x27;s your problem?<p>Arguments like &quot;well then show me your bank account&quot; are just plain stupid: I have no interest in sharing this information with my work colleagues, my neighbours or my friends just because it would have implications in some social aspects (it&#x27;s not about security!). But his information is only sensitive in context of a personality. I&#x27;d neither have problem to show anything to a random stranger nor would I be interested myself in this information coming from a random stranger.<p>If somebody uses my information in an unethical way, it is not the problem of a surveillance, but that it&#x27;s possible at all.<p>Exposing my personal data to a government during an investigation could also protect me by verifying my alibi. We have nothing to hide, right?<p>The comparison with free speech is ridiculous. Free speech is the opposite of hiding and doesn&#x27;t imply breaking the law. Hiding implies playing by other rules, than commonly established. Free speech is important because eventually I might have something to say. But no one would ever agree that he or she will have something to hide eventually (without getting criminal).<p>So I&#x27;m still missing the point...
评论 #10850414 未加载
评论 #10851616 未加载
bitL超过 9 年前
&quot;I have nothing to hide, and what I am keeping private is encrypted by a quantum- and $5-wrench-method-resistant encryption.&quot;
yuhong超过 9 年前
My goal is more modest, to fix the problems with posting using real names if possible (and not by using real name policies).
ternbot超过 9 年前
Truth prevails; it is not mass surveillance but mass data manipulation we must be concerned about now.
zero1954超过 9 年前
What an irony that the link is missing the &quot;s&quot;.