If I've learned something during my early adulthood it's that, it's impossible to not be in conflict with at least some people, because even if you're the most fair and considerate person on the planet, other people will prey on you to try to encroach on your territory and steal what you have.
So the idea that you have nothing to hide is completely banal. Those who are more powerful than you won't leave you alone just because you ignore them. They will eventually come knocking to steal your wealth and your freedom.
emsign 2 minutes ago [-]
Secret agencies are good customers of data brokers or sometimes even their owners.
The data broker eco system is notoriously intransparent and dynamic.
cbold 5 minutes ago [-]
Everyone has some economic game going on. If some entity can see most of the cards you hold, it like putting your cards open on the table during a poker game. That is why big companies want your data, they want to peek at the cards of as much players in the game as possible.
anotherdog 18 minutes ago [-]
Secrecy is good
Privacy is good
Crime is not necessarily bad
You don't have to even go Anne Frank to make the argument.
utopiah 20 minutes ago [-]
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" Eric Schmidt - Google CEO in 2009
Everyone who has been helping Google/Amazon/Meta construct their digital panopticons is culpable in at least some small way for the abuse that may follow.
Dansvidania 14 minutes ago [-]
I have no idea how people can be so shortsighted as to utter “I have nothing to hide”.
Not only that’s very rarely true as the article shows pretty nicely… what is legal changes, sometimes drastically and rapidly.
deafpolygon 31 minutes ago [-]
One of my favorite bit about “if you have nothing to hide…” is asking folks if they’d be willing to take the door off their bathroom when they went to use it.
defrost 20 minutes ago [-]
DIY Home builders frequently leave that kind of trim to the end.
It's more a signifier of who grew up with Puritan roots.
aeonik 26 minutes ago [-]
I just all for their passwords and credit card information. They never share it with me for some reason.
23 minutes ago [-]
treetalker 39 minutes ago [-]
(2015)
saaaaaam 29 minutes ago [-]
2015, but arguably more relevant today than ever before.
jacquesm 19 minutes ago [-]
Are you suggesting that the fact that I wrote it in 2015 somehow makes it 'dated'?
I could update it but I think the fact that it was written before Trump I actually makes it more powerful than less, and you're welcome to extrapolate from 2015 to 2026 and see where it's headed.
klez 7 minutes ago [-]
Are you suggesting that they're suggesting anything beyond what date this was written on, since we usually point that out in almost every article that has not been written in the current year for a variety of reason, including "oh, yeah, I remember I already read this without even clicking, it's not new, I might as well go read the comments directly"?
elefanten 11 minutes ago [-]
Isn’t it just an hn convention?
I agree with your comment I’m replying to completely, but the date tag doesn’t have to be an indictment (as you yourself suggest)
jacquesm 8 minutes ago [-]
That's why I'm asking a question. For me the difference between then and now is then, 2015 it was still a thing that I saw hanging in the future, the OPM hack is what prompted me to write this. But if I had not written this then I would probably be writing it today on account of the ICE article currently on the front page.
All of those big tech companies have willingly given in to Trump and his band of goons and are cooperating at a scale that dwarfs anything the Germans could have ever wished for. The article shows the damage that one single field in one single file could do. Now multiply that by a couple of 1000.
The potential for an epic disaster is definitely there and even HN is apparently not immune to having its share of bootlickers and bootwearers.
keyle 8 minutes ago [-]
C'mon, you know it's convention to write the year of publication in a title. No agenda beyond that.
Vinu_pro_ 13 minutes ago [-]
OK
8 minutes ago [-]
Rendered at 10:42:50 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
So the idea that you have nothing to hide is completely banal. Those who are more powerful than you won't leave you alone just because you ignore them. They will eventually come knocking to steal your wealth and your freedom.
The data broker eco system is notoriously intransparent and dynamic.
Privacy is good
Crime is not necessarily bad
You don't have to even go Anne Frank to make the argument.
193 files for Eric Schmidt according to https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-...
314 files for Larry Page
294 files for Sergey Brin
Interesting rhetoric. It's always the people you suspect the most?
And yet, there are always people willing to carry water for them.
Everyone who has been helping Google/Amazon/Meta construct their digital panopticons is culpable in at least some small way for the abuse that may follow.
Not only that’s very rarely true as the article shows pretty nicely… what is legal changes, sometimes drastically and rapidly.
It's more a signifier of who grew up with Puritan roots.
I could update it but I think the fact that it was written before Trump I actually makes it more powerful than less, and you're welcome to extrapolate from 2015 to 2026 and see where it's headed.
I agree with your comment I’m replying to completely, but the date tag doesn’t have to be an indictment (as you yourself suggest)
All of those big tech companies have willingly given in to Trump and his band of goons and are cooperating at a scale that dwarfs anything the Germans could have ever wished for. The article shows the damage that one single field in one single file could do. Now multiply that by a couple of 1000.
The potential for an epic disaster is definitely there and even HN is apparently not immune to having its share of bootlickers and bootwearers.