Like you wouldn’t strip naked just because you have nothing to hide. Change my mind.
Please tell this to my family.
Here’s my go-to argument, lmk if it works for you:
"When you go to the bathroom, do you close the door?
Why? There’s nothing illegal about pooping, is there?
Would you be okay with security cameras installed in public bathroom stalls, watching everyone, adult and child alike, who did their business, just to make sure no one was doing drugs in there? (Criminalization of recreational drugs is a whole other issue I could talk about, but you get the point.)
Of course you wouldn’t. You’re worried about perverts watching the security tapes. By the same token, I don’t really want Facebook to know the entire contents of my phone’s contact list (no criminals in there – but what else are you going to do with those numbers?), or exactly what kind of porn I’ve been searching for (and don’t think that just because you’re not logged in, Facebook doesn’t know it’s you! Browser fingerprinting is pretty accurate these days and that’s ignoring the fact that your IP address doesn’t change). Worse, I don’t want every single one of my future employers getting access to my chat logs and asking me about the things I joke about when I think I have privacy."
I usually ask if they would be OK with random stranger standing right behind the window, looking inside the living room 24/7. But they just don’t care…
I’m by no means suggesting you shouldn’t take steps to protect your privacy. However, part of the reason privacy advocates struggle to connect with a wider audience are terrible false equivalences like these.
Like you wouldn’t strip naked just because you have nothing to hide.
This example fails because people do have something they want to hide, their naked bodies, and the violation is far more severe than the typical data we’re trying to protect online.
If you throw this around then start talking about metadata or whatever, even people who might have been open to the idea will ignore you.
I dont agree, cavity searches are not just a privacy invasion they are state sanctioned sexual assault. That doesn’t mean that people who say this aren’t idiots…
Exactly. I’m pro-privacy but this analogy ain’t it
That’s the reasonable position.
…only if it’s assumed.
A lot of bottoms are now very confused and conflicted about your argument /s
TSA: Come on now, be a PATRIOT won’t ya?
My two arguements for privacy:
-
I have nothing to hide, the same way I have nothing I want to put up for display.
-
What can be logged about me is trivial and benign. But I can’t trust that any future government/company/entity/social movement will also see it as benign and trivial. “Your honor, on april 1st, 2024, the defendant posted on the fediverse that Glitch McConnel deserves the garrote. This clearly shows insurgent behavior”
-
I’d say there’s a difference between caring about privacy, and caring about invasion of privacy
If you have enough protection against one, you don’t need to worry about the other
Please note this only applies to modern countries!
You’re distinction is meaningful. I will further distinguish whether one merely believes the statement or whether they are using it to argue a position.
I would say in the case where one says “I have nothing to hide.” as a retort, it’s usually in defense of an argument for the invasion of privacy. And it’s never about themselves; it’s always very distant from them.
I’d rather you fondle my insides than know that I enjoy watching porn of guys fondling each others’ insides.
Privacy isn’t equal to porn history .
It’s not only equal to porn history.
;)
I would, if there wasn’t the judgment factor that comes with being naked.
