I know data privacy is important and I know that big corporations like Meta became powerful enough to even manipulate elections using our data.
But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.
So, why should people worry about data privacy even if they have “nothing to hide”?
Ask them to unlock their phone and give it to you. Chances are, you’ll quickly find out they have things they’d like to hide.
I have nudes on my phone. I honestly don’t care if they leak one day, in fact, I have been to nudist beaches and I’m pretty sure there are online pictures of me naked already.
That’s completely different to showing naked pictures of me to colleagues, etc.
But if your photos leak, your colleagues could see them. Someone can blackmail you. Or do that using any other sensitive information.
But then I wouldn’t be showing to them.
My problem is not they seeing me naked. My problem would be showing the photos directly to them. I mean when someone asks for my phone, im always like dont like at my photos, I have nudes, then some close friends have still go to my photos and then I dont care.
I couldn’t care less if a few photos leaked. Nobody in my community would care, if they did I wouldn’t care about them, and blackmail risk it’s far overblown especially within the context of photos. You are far more likely to be exposed by an angry partner. Being afraid that Google had a rouge dick pic that might leak with thousands of others is absurd.
One thing I often see is people not understanding the difference between secrecy and privacy. They ask why it matters if you’re not doing anything wrong. A UK government minister actually said “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, and then backpedaled when someone pointed out they were quoting Joseph Goebbels. The analogy I’ve seen is simple: I’m sure you don’t do anything illegal in the shower, but I’m also pretty sure most people would be uncomfortable with a law that required you to have a police officer standing in you bathroom with a video camera to record you showering, just in case.
The other thing is the assumption that any information about you that the government actually has about you will only be used against you if you commit a crime, in which case you’ll deserve it - if you’re not a bad person then it’s fine. This is a double fallacy.
First, we’ve seen that information can be used to do all sorts of things regardless of wrongdoing - if someone knows enough about you, they can use it to manipulate you. I don’t mean blackmail or whatever, although that’s an option. I mean that with a clear enough picture of your preferences and biases and habits, someone can tailor their actions and information to your psychology and make you think whatever they want you to agree with.
Second, it assumes that you won’t ever commit a crime because crimes are bad things and you’re not a bad person. This overlooks the possibility of you being mistakenly accused while innocent, but more importantly it overlooks the possibility that the government will change into something that holds different moral values to yours. Even in the modern world we’ve seen places outlaw abortions, or criminalise homosexuality, or pass laws on what religions you’re allowed to follow. If that happens in your country and you find yourself on the wrong side of whatever arbitrary line they’ve now drawn, you may regret giving them so much information about you - information that lets them identify you, prove that you broke their new rules, and ruin your life in so many ways.
The default principal of any exchange with governments, businesses, or any entity taking your information should be to give as much information as is required for them to perform the operation you’re requesting of them, and no more - and wherever possible to only engage with those entities that you trust to have that information; a trust that they earn by a verified and unbroken track record of ethical and trustworthy behaviour.
“But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.”
Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.
If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that’s when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.
It’s simpler actually, despite all the words the state still communicates a certain atmosphere of intimidation. When you submit something to the police, it’s not because you consider it obviously right, it’s because you obey their order.
So despite legalities being different, for privacy people still feel afraid to say that they’d hide something.
It’s a matter of emotion. They are not afraid of you, but they are afraid of police. For some people this means that showing something to you is fine and to police not, for others (the majority) - the opposite. You won’t hurt them, police may.
What if I also don’t worry about these and don’t store my banking information?
I feel like the people in this thread saying you should ask for personal details are kind of missing the point of the ‘nothing to hide’ argument. It’s not that they feel they have nothing to hide from everyone, it’s that they feel they have nothing to hide from those with access to their data (governments/corporations). Knowing intimate life details of someone you know personally is very different from knowing intimate life details of some random person you’ll never meet. I would argue something like this instead:
Unless you’re a newborn, everyone in the US has broken thousands of laws in their life. It’s unavoidable. If corporations/the government have records of all that, if people don’t have privacy, the powers that be have the power to put anyone and everyone in prison for the rest of their lives at their discretion.
Even if you’re not worried now, once your data is out there it’s not coming back. You may agree with the policy of government and corporations now, but can you be sure that’ll be the case in ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Who knows how laws and regimes will change, and through all that, they’ll always have power over you.
While this is far more elaborate, I agree it’s the best approach if the other person is willing to have a discussion.
You may sprinkle it with actual examples of what’s happening in China with their point system: not getting bus tickets or loan grants or whatever because you not even mentioned something critical somewhere but are associated with someone how did.
They may say it’s unrealistic but 30 years ago Eastern Germany was the same. They just lacked the tech and needed to recruit regular people as spies.
This is a good point and got me thinking of something that would be a better example. I understand the point that it’s because they don’t really care about some corporation without a face collecting their info, which is different from you who they personally know asking them to unlock their phone and give it to you.
Maybe a good example would be their baby monitor or home camera? Let them know that anyone on the internet can tap into their camera feed because those companies don’t lock them down. Not that anyone is looking at it, but anyone could if they wanted to. Would that be a more convincing argument to ask if they are fine with that since they have nothing to hide?
Finally someone who gets it. Imo, the comments asking those people to hand over bank details and similar stuff can harm the argument. I mean, if someone told me that, I’d just say I do that every time I go to the bank. Or my bank has those details and they’re made up of people like me. It won’t really convince me that privacy is important since most of them probably have never experienced getting their accounts hacked.
they have nothing to hide from those with access to their data (governments/corporations).
That is only a good point until you remind them that the government/corporations aren’t just entities but also consist of people, any of which could end up being their neighbor tomorrow, hold their next job interview, be their next potential tinder match, etc.
Of course the rest of what you wrote is true too, but I really felt the need to point this out.
To give an example: I’m in data science. As part of a contract work I had access to a csv dump of a database of addresses of all people who ordered campaign material for a specific political campaign. I could have easily sated my own curiosity and checked who in my near vacinity is in that list, as well as the exact amounts that they ordered and some other notes about them. Suddenly it wouldn’t just be some corporation anymore but their neighbor.
Those corporations and governements have people employed who can have (and usually do have) access to the data. Intentional or unintentional. So would they still be comfortable knowing that I’m able to lookup their data? That’s what the personal questions are about.
If the government still had personal interactions with a clerk at a desk, would they still be comfortable sharing everything they do now?
It’s not unreasonable to answer yes to that first question; that’s why it’s not the most sound argument. I was pretty firmly in the ‘nothing to hide’ camp for a long time because that was the only reason I heard. I really don’t care if some random government office worker knows about all the intimate details about my life. I don’t mind if you know I’ve been having prostate problems, but that’s not something I would tell to someone I know personally.
Ask them for their social security number, mother’s maiden name, favorite pet, favorite teacher, high school mascot. It should start to dawn on them
