219
linuxxx
3y

Just watched a video where someone (in relation to the new mass surveillance law in the netherlands) asked people on the street if they had something to hide.

Everyone said no.

"Could you get your phone and show me around?"

Everyone said yes.

"May I take a look at your messages/pictures/browsing history?"

Suddenly 80 percent said no.

"But you said you had nothing to hide!"

"I'm going to take that back."

Comments
  • 42
    Holy fuck I'm still frustrated about that whole mass surveillance situation in your country! It just purely sucks, dude
  • 27
    @dontPanic can he panic, now? 😬

    OT: that is fucking rubbish, people need to understand that even if they have “nothing to hide” it’s still their privacy. It’s their right. No one should have the authority to snoop through other peoples shit. It’s fucking wrong.
  • 37
    "I have nothing to hide," is probably the most untruthful statement a person can make in modern society.
  • 2
    playing the devil's advocate now - do you think they are interested in your private photos from last christmas in the office or even have the resources to save that shit anywhere from everyone? if only the life of one innocent human being could be saved by for example maybe spotting a terrorist that way don't you think it is worth it?
  • 12
    @HIGHphen The nsa reportedly saves around 1 MILLION terabytes every fucking hour so yes.

    Definitely not.
  • 5
    @linuxxx well, that is a shitload of data no one is probably interested in, i agree.
  • 8
    @HIGHphen If it would be 100% sure that someone would be killed by a car accident tomorrow anywhere in the world, I'd you had a car and a drivers license, would you not drive tomorrow?
  • 9
    @HIGHphen The thing is, you're not the one who decides what data is 'useless' either now or in 10 years.
  • 8
    I'm sorry, I'm for the referendum and against the proposed law but that comparison is shit and has to stop.

    I'm fine with a algorithm "spying" on me given that it finds a balanced way in to the legal system. If an algorithm finds let's say, a very suspicious subset of nodes talking Allah/Christ/Hitler and looking on how to make bombs, where to get AKs, and how to plow to masses in a truck (for instance) then this should be weight and be judged by a court before an actual human looks in to the who what and where of these nodes.

    Fear mongering that the government will be watching you is not a realistic way to look at how tech could solve a problem with minimal side effects. The tech will become better, and it will be implemented, the question is not if but how...
  • 3
    @stevenliemberg Except for the first sentence I disagree with you :)
  • 8
    @stevenliemberg I'm simply not okay with my data getting captured if I'm not a suspect.
  • 5
    We are hamsters in wheels. Our pictures, our usage, and our personal information are valuable to those who would sell us things. We deserve the right to keep this information to ourselves, or to be compensated for handing it over.
  • 5
    @HIGHphen no its not worth it, because it's not nude photos or raunchy texts their after. Machine Learning is getting big and it's only a matter of time before someone in the government is convinced that if we analyze the data of all the people that we can "stop attacks before they happen" and other such bs.

    No one person or government should have that kind of power either. But it's that kind of thinking that ends with us all living out a real life Terminator scenario. "I have nothing to hide" can pretty quickly become "I'm running for my life".
  • 9
    @stevenliemberg you do realize that fear mongering from the other side (government and media) is what leads to people giving up their rights right? They want you to think that terrorist threats are bigger than they are and that terrorists are everywhere so that you give up your rights.

    Being afraid of what the government might do when they have unlimited access to everything you do and say is a very legitimate concern
  • 6
    Also at play is the fact that governments are the terriers of corporations, and will generally do whatever they say, including, "give me all this private information."
  • 7
    Whatever. Feel free to see what Pornhub links I have bookmarked. Don't act like you don't go there, too. 😋
  • 4
    @datawraith I've got my resources put pornhub isn't one tbh :P
  • 5
    @irene Not revealing that for privacy reasons 😋
  • 3
  • 14
    I've written offensive stuff about my employers here, anonymously, because it's therapeutic.

    I've worked in politics, have used drugs, and have see the weirdest porn. I have political affiliations others might not like.

    I have a medical history which doesn't affect my work at all, but would influence the way employers look at me.

    Having nothing to hide is simply never true -- If it's not for privacy's sake then for security.

    Even the a moderate model citizen has their passwords and banking details to hide, and if a stranger rings your doorbell and asks "might I ask where your kids go to school?"... I bet no parent would answer.
  • 9
    @stevenliemberg If that was all it was ever going to be used for, most people would be fine with it.

    The core problem is that once the information gets caught the allowable use-cases for it tends to slowly expand. Terrorists today, mass murderers tomorrow. Then killers, muggers, harassers, online trolls, dissidents, people who protest against the government, people who disagree with the government, then people who are thinking bad things about the government.

    This is a VERY slippery slope, we should NEVER EVER get on it because the immediate advantage will NEVER outweigh the eventual cost.
  • 4
    @stevenliemberg

    The problem is that even machine surveillance is only possible when communication is forced to be plain text. Criminals would still find ways to encrypt their messages by using "illegal" tools, while the only the dumbest criminals/terrorists are caught together with the every other human.

    I would argue that while terrorism is scary, the chances that criminals abuse a weak communication system against you is much higher.

    People are more likely to die from biking than bombing, soda drinks kills more people than AKs in the west. We don't undermine our democracies to fight unsafe traffic or diabetes... so lets not resort to such drastic measures to combat terrorism.

    Believe it or not, terrorism is a relatively small problem. A dozen dead people in a bombing is a tragedy, but that's still less than people dying from drunk driving in my small country.

    And again, these measures would most likely NOT catch anyone except the dumbest terrorists and criminals.
  • 5
    Not to mention that radicalism and criminality is "easy" to fight.

    As I mentioned, I have been in politics for a bit. The difference between a poor neighborhood with a good school, a small skate park and a few trained street coaches compared to one without...

    You don't raise a lost teenager by wiretapping their whatsapp. You go into their neighborhood, listen to their problems, and make sure they're coached, in person, by humans with a heart instead of a camera.

    That seems expensive, and it is. But so is dragnet surveillance... and guess which one has better results?
  • 1
    @linuxxx Sure, my point is that the collection of data in and how it's analyzed and handled is not strictly the same as topic as "the government spying on people". I don't think we will get to a good compromise if the discussion is being held on the latter topic. I think that governments using big Data in some form (by lack of a better term) to analyze is inevitable, again, the discussion should be about the How and not the If IMO.
  • 1
    @brahn well I see where you are coming from, but for instance tapping a phone requires a judge's permission in the Netherlands legal system. It is possible to implement check s and balances for other forms of sur and sousvailence, that seems more constructive then simply objecting to it.

    Just to add, it is a slippery slope we are already on. So set a trajectory instead of trying to get back uphill...
  • 1
    @stevenliemberg

    EU directives state that companies can use anonimized aggregated data for analytics, while identifiable information requires explicit consent.

    Governments should play by that same rule, where explicit consent could be substituted by per-case court order.

    So, there's the How, in my opinion.
  • 1
    @bittersweet that is a constructive point I agree with, yet, the problem IMO is that, asking people how they feel if a secret service agent would watch them fuck, is just shit rethoric s and has little to non to do with the actual discussion at hand.
  • 1
    @watzon so fight fear mongering with fear mongering? Don't agree...
  • 2
    I don't honestly think they care about any pics that any of us have, they just want to survey us and make sure we are doing all right.

    I am just speaking in the context of the U.S.A., but we already passed a bill making it legal and no one noticed / cared until the NSA started actually doing it. The people of my country are so stupid for waiting till the last minute to disagree, I can honestly think they deserve this. Maybe you can still help your country with ample time.
  • 4
    @stevenliemberg I'm might not be worried about the NSA (in our case AIVD) seeing my dick pics, but a weakened infrastructure threatens users in more ways.

    What if your stalking ex works at WhatsApp? Are you sure they can't access the database? Suddenly you'd not feel so comfortable with unencrypted chat.

    What if a nasty president grabs control and wants to eliminate all those treehugging lefties, or those dangerous government hating libertarians?

    End to end encryption means security and privacy by default.
  • 2
    @bittersweet weak infrastructure, the pros and cons of end to end are all valid points to take in consideration. Sadly those are not the prevailing topics of the public and political debate. I'm especially disappointed in our pirate party, despite their slogan inform yourself, their entire referendum campaign seems to be aimed at fear mongering. And even from a practical standpoint I can understand that to a certain degree, try explaining end to end encryption to your grandma. However this does result in a lot of ppl on my Facebook timeline who have a very outspoken opinion about something the don't really understand the nuances from (and are never stimulated to change that)
  • 2
    @bittersweet

    It may be expensive, but criminal justice costs more. Not to mention the degenerative effect poverty and despair have on communities as a whole. Lots of people oppose spending money on the programs you described, but I think it's money well spent.
  • 3
    This surveillance shit is bullshit , much like gun control.

    Who is on the "bad" side will always manage to do harm regardless of this and be able to stay anonymous as well. ( no pun intended )
  • 3
    @azous Fucking this.
  • 1
    @stevenliemberg no you fight fear mongering with common sense
  • 3
    Sorry to be “that guy” that talks about the U.S. Constitution but #NotSorry. This is precisely what the 4th Amendment was designed to prevent. Too bad it’s been completely overridden here by unconstitutional “acts” of Congress. I wish other countries’ citizens luck with their respective governments. If our very well worded and intentioned 4th couldn’t save us, then God help y’all.
  • 1
    @watzon I would not complain if that was the case ;)
  • 0
    Yeah that mass surveilance law. I'm not buying it. If they want to do mass surveilance they probably already can and are doing it. Now it's just becoming a law so that everyone is aware of it.
  • 0
    @Bitwise “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” — Lavrentiy Beria, Head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police
  • 0
    @Bitwise or cue the Panem national anthem.
  • 1
    I so need to get out of this country
  • 2
    @Linuxxx Ik heb zoveel met je te doen.... Maar troost je, in België is het bijna even erg.
  • 0
    In France, it has been voted and accepted that any police officer can ask you for your password for any internet website or application without putting you under arrest. If you refuse to obtemperate, you can be arrested
  • 0
    @irene it made Amnesty international very angry
  • 0
    Why are they doing this surveillance shit? If they read the Bible they wouldn't be doing it...
Add Comment