Comment by winter_blue
15 years ago
"If you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" is valid not only in the context of net privacy but much more so as a general rule.
15 years ago
"If you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" is valid not only in the context of net privacy but much more so as a general rule.
You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.
Do you close the door when you go to the bathroom?
I do close the door, but I don't search for pinhole cameras in public bathrooms, in spite of the fact that some exist. I think that highlights the difference between expecting privacy and trying to ensure it.
But the fact is that you still seek out a "private" bathroom to relieve yourself and don clothing do you not? Or are you as likely to do the same things in plain view?
What do you call that, if not ensuring privacy? The only thing different is that your level of trust is lower than others.
2 replies →
Things that should not be doing are usually done in secret, so from that point of view, Eric Schmidt's saying is a truism. Unfortunately, it gets applied in the converse form, which is wrong: people, and especially governments, infer guilt from a desire for privacy (a politer term than "hiding").
This is explained very well in nfnaaron's post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983997
Democracy depends on hidden votes and freedom of speech depends on anonymity. Your statement therefore suggests you are opposed to both democracy and freedom of speech.
While I don't like the tone of this post, the point about secret ballots is insightful and deserves consideration.
Yes, I probably should have been less blunt. I was partly thinking about this article
http://www.computorney.com/anonarticle.htm
which concludes that "anonymity in cyberspace is a fundamental underpinning of democracy"
In 1995 the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law that required the disclosure of personal identity on political literature.
http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/Essays/Civil-Liber...