this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
142 points (94.9% liked)

Privacy

31872 readers
575 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ever thought, "Why should I care about online privacy? I have nothing to hide." Read this https://www.socialcooling.com/

credit: [deleted] user on Reddit.

original link: https://old.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/savz9u/i_have_nothing_to_hide_why_should_i_care_about/

u/magicmulder

The main issue isn’t that someone would be interested in you personally but that data mining may put you in categories you don’t want to be in. 99.9% correlation of your „likes“ and follows to those of terror suspects - whoops you’re a terror suspect yourself. You follow heavy metal bands and Harley Davidson? Whoops, you have a 98% likelihood of drinking and smoking, up goes your insurance rate. And so on.

u/Mayayana

Indeed. But most people here seem to have misunderstood your post. One of my favorite examples is from Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google, whoo said in an interview (on youtube) that if you think you have something to hide then maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're doing. (Like maybe the Jews on Kristallnacht shouldn't have been living in their houses?) Schmidt was later reported to have got an apartment in NYC without a doorman, to avoid gossip about his promiscuous lifestyle. :)

u/SandboxedCapybara

I always thought the like "no bathroom door," "no curtains," or "no free speech" arguments always fell flat when talking about privacy. Sure, as people who already care about privacy they make sense, but for people who don't they are just such hollow arguments. I think a better argument is real life issues that people always face. The fact that things like their home address, social security number, face, email, phone number, passwords, their emails and texts, etc could be out there for anyone to see soon or may already be is almost always more concerning for people. People trust companies. People don't trust people.

u/Striking-Implement52

Another good read: https://thenewoil.org/why.html 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy

etc

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 60 points 1 year ago (4 children)

In Germany there’s a private company called SCHUFA that aggregates data about people, mangles them in a proprietary (i.e. secret) way and produces a “score” indicating how creditworthy an individual is. Companies buy these scores from SCHUFA, that’s how they make a profit.

One of the data points influencing the score is a person’s address. If you live near people of whom SCHUFA thinks they’re not creditworthy, your own score will drop, too. So by simply sharing their your address, you may already suffer detrimental consequences against which they have no recourse.

This is another instance of the “being put in categories you don’t want to be in” point in favor of privacy.

[–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 year ago

And if that wasn't enough, their new app violates the law, collecting and sending analytics data without user consent. But no court ever gives a fuck, they all swallow the whole legitimate interest bullshit, that has no actual basis.

Sorry, had to rant a little.

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’re right that this is horrifying but as an American working on data broker consumer privacy issues this is hilariously quaint. The problem is so, so much worse in the states. There’s an entire industry of SCHUFAs collecting and segmenting audiences in literally hundreds of thousands of different ways, wrapping themselves in the cloak of “Consumer Reporting Agencies” and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Data brokers are the bane of our existence, the worst thing that no one is aware of in our modern world.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We call that redlining in the US and it's often tied up with race over here, which can quickly get a credit company into lawsuits https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

(Though that said, it's probably way worse in the States than in Germany...)

[–] RQG@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

One of the issues is here in Germany we basically got a monopoly. The Schufa is so omnipresent I used to think it was lead by the government. You cannot open a bank account in Germany without giving your data to them. You almost cannot rent or buy anything on credit without their credit score. Yet they are a private profit driven company which doesn't even tell how the score is calculated. And which is proven to not follow some laws. But noone does anything. Boggles the mind.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Insurance companies the world over already do this. If you live in a high crime area based on insurance claims your insurance will be higher. Has nothing to do with privacy.

[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

IMHO insurance is another thing. If the insurance company has reliable (statistical) proof that I live in a neighborhood where, for instance, my property is more likely to get damaged, then it’s only right (and fair towards the other insurants) that my fees are higher.

Living in a poor neighborhood, on the other hand, does not imply that I, personally, am less likely to pay back loans.

[–] emberwit@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe they have reliable statistical proof that it does.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Seems like such proof would be easy to put together. If you live in a poor neighborhood you're more likely to be poor. (If that wasn't true it wouldn't be a "poor neighborhood", would it?) If you're poor you're more likely to not pay back loans (due to simply not having money if nothing else). Therefore, if you're living in a poor neighborhood you're more likely to not pay back loans.

All you have to do is put that together statistically and you're set.

Now... that doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but it probably is easy to prove.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Living in a poor neighborhood, on the other hand, does not imply that I, personally, am less likely to pay back loans.

Statistically it absolutely would, just like it does for insurance.

[–] Fecundpossum@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the great share. I try to convince my loved ones of the value of even small, low effort ways to control their data slug trail. They don’t get it. Not even a little bit. And the vast majority of people won’t care until we’re all living in a black mirror episode.

Are we already living in a black mirror episode? Fuck.

[–] polyfire@waveform.social 24 points 1 year ago

Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 year ago

To quote the girl in Anon:

It's not that I have something to hide. I have nothing I want you to see.

[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

I’m more interested in privacy to prevent access to my data stream and PLANTING incriminating data. It’s a hell of a lot easier to frame someone when you have easy access to their devices.

TL/DR; You may have nothing to hide but you’ve got plenty to protect.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

"Having something to hide" is a moving target. With good privacy practices it doesn't matter what the definition of "something to hide" becomes.

[–] frustbox@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Why you should care?

Because the debate is not about whether or not you have something to hide.

It's about your right to consent. You should have the right to say no. And you should have the right to change your mind for any reason. You should have the right to regain control of who can store, access or process your data.

Depending on where you live you may have such rights, or you may not. And the political debate is about granting, strengthening, weakening or revoking these rights. And you should care about having these rights, whether you use them or not.

[–] spacedancer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The statement about people trust corporations, not people is valid; that’s why I stopped using the “don’t have doors” and “let me see your phone” argument because people will think it’s different in that you personally know them, instead of some faceless corporation collecting your data.

It got me thinking of a better example, and the one I came up with is baby monitors and home/door cctv cameras. A lot of companies providing those services lack any kind of security in that anyone can potentially see your camera live feed on the internet. Not that anyone’s watching, but someone could if they wanted. So if you’re not hiding anything, would you be fine that your baby monitor can potentially be used for whatever reason even though no one in your social circle can’t “see” it?

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

Not that anyone’s watching, but someone could if they wanted

For the record, browsing and sharing open camera feeds was popular on 4chan's /b/ for a while (like over a decade ago iirc), with commenters treating them like some sort of drama or sitcom. It was fucked up.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's still those sorts of people around on better hidden forums.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I hide not because I’m ashamed of how I live. I’m happy I live this way and believe it to be extremely ethical. Try telling my country folk though that it’s ethical for me to be transgender, gay, and polyamorous and you might start an argument. And however you live might wind up controversial too

[–] JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com 7 points 1 year ago

Because I'm tired of seeing ads for things I literally just purchased.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People trust companies. People don't trust people.

They're right, people do, but those people are missing a crucial point:

Companies are just groups of people.

[–] totallynotarobot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But without the social norms that constrain most of us to not be complete dicks all the time. So they're like antisocial or sociopathic people.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

(Which seems to increasingly be everyone I meet these days).

[–] smegforbrains@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

When people in conversations tell me they've got nothing to hide, I routinely ask them for their bank details.

[–] reflex@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All good points. I would like to add too, that not being the product for companies like Google is also nice.

[–] thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One thing I've used to get really thoughtful responses out of people who "don't care" is "Yeah, things may be fine now (they're not) but what if some future fascist regime comes to power in 8 years? 12 years? All these records of your information will STILL exist."

3 things I learned from getting these reactions:

  1. These people (mostly) actually DO care. They just don't think they can do anything about it / have the skills / time / energy to do anything about it / think they will lose access to the services they rely in if they take steps to protect themselves. So they justify not taking any action or changing their behavior and say they don't care because it makes it easier to live with the toxic data harvesting they actually DO KNOW is going on and just don't really want to think about too hard.

  2. On some level, they have decided to "pay the price" for convenient access to things like Facebook, Insta and Google Maps. They may not LIKE the pricetag, not really, but they've decided it's worth it and because they don't really like the price tag they embrace psychological tricks to avoid thinking about it, worrying about or stressing about it (like telling yourself and others "why do I care? I have nothing to hide.")

  3. The most discouraging thing I learned from this is that, short of proof of immediate, existential danger from their existing usage patterns, they probably won't change, even when you crack their defences with an angle they haven't thought of. They've already decided there's no escape for them and oh well, it's worth it. They'll stay there EVEN THOUGH they're bothered by the same things you are.

[–] arvere@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

their home address, social security number, face, email, phone number, passwords, their emails and texts, etc could be out there for anyone to see soon or may already be

this part is important and few people talk about this. your data is indeed for faceless companies eyes only, but for now.

you'd have to blindly trust all big datas' security practices and that they won't be leaked any time in the future, either by an inside agent or by a security vulnerability.

once upon a time we did the same to our online accounts and used the same password over and over, only to find they were stored as plain text waiting to be leaked...

[–] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Speaking of privacy and tracking, would anyone know of a location app that can be trusted not to sell the tracking data? My family uses Life360 so that we can track our children's locations as they commute to and from school.or.run around the neighborhood, that sort.of thing. We have Android phones. I'm under the impression that if we all had iPhones we could track them using Apple apps,.which would not do anything funky with the data. This is something I wasn't too worried about until reading more about privacy, but I still need to know where my kids are.

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please for all that is good stop using Life360.

[–] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I told a friend who works in tech that we use Life360 and he blanched. He began to persuade me it would not be a good thing to use. Thanks to a post here I now turned on location tracking in Google Maps in our phones. I've been hearing that we should try to limit our use of Google but in this instance is it better than Life360? Are there any other alternatives for Android?

[–] fluffy@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] pezhore@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't know about not selling your tracking data, but why not do location sharing straight with Google maps?

[–] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohhh, I did not know that was a thing! I will look into that.

[–] pezhore@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

There's two ways to share with Google maps - time based and just for a trip. My wife and I use both, the trip share gives an ETA for when you will arrive and it's great for when one person gets take out and the other preps dishes, sets the table.

[–] nIi7WJVZwktT4Ze@fost.hu 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Did you check out Locus? It's an end-to-end encrypted location sharing utility designed for decentralized servers running Nostr. It's free and open source software that secures that your location will most likely never be shared with entities out of your control.

[–] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does Locus allow you to track someone in real time? I couldn't tell from the screenshots.

[–] nIi7WJVZwktT4Ze@fost.hu 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, you can set a timer when you want Locus to share the location (every Monday and Tuesday from 8-20 for example, but you can set it to 24/7 if you input the times right).

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

BTW no one “sells” that type of data because it’s the access to it that they want. They will sell access to you via ads, but they give over the data. They will let someone pay for ads to be targeted to people that went to X location.

This is what google do. The person suggesting google maps is literally telling you to use the biggest ad company in the world’s product if you want privacy lol.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

BTW no one “sells” that type of data because it’s the access to it that they want. They will sell access to you via ads, but they won't give over the data. They will let someone pay for ads to be targeted to people that went to X location.

This is what google do. The person suggesting google maps is literally telling you to use the biggest ad company in the world’s product if you want privacy lol.

[–] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But what would you suggest for Android phones? We need tracking for our kids' commutes.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I have no idea tbh. What you want goes against privacy, so there's probably nothing that you can use on Android.

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Plenty of services that access location information sell “deidentified” datasets with that information all the time. Which are readily and routinely reidentified.