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”?

  • Flicsmo@rammy.site
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Dnn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • scytale@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • CheshireSnake@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Mirodir@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Guadin@k.fe.derate.me
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Flicsmo@rammy.site
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Guadin@k.fe.derate.me
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I meant that when asking those questions, you are familiar with the person you’re speaking with. Indeed, when I ask you those questions the answers would be the same since we (presumably) don’t know eachother.