this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
305 points (97.8% liked)

Privacy

2164 readers
273 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 22 hours ago

Vime's thoughts are some of the finest in the Discworld books. Who here hasn't read the economic theory of boots.

This is one of my favorites:

"There had been that Weapons Law, for a start. Weapons were involved in so many crimes that, Swing reasoned, reducing the number of weapons had to reduce the crime rate. Vimes wondered if he’d sat up in bed in the middle of the night and hugged himself when he’d dreamed that one up. Confiscate all weapons, and crime would go down. It made sense. It would have worked, too, if only there had been enough coppers—say, three per citizen.

Amazingly, quite a few weapons were handed in. The flaw, though, was one that had somehow managed to escape Swing, and it was this: criminals don’t obey the law. It’s more or less a requirement for the job. They had no particular interest in making the streets safer for anyone except themselves. And they couldn’t believe what was happening. It was like Hogswatch every day.

Some citizens took the not-unreasonable view that something had gone a bit askew if only naughty people were carrying arms. And they got arrested in large numbers. The average copper, when he’s been kicked in the nadgers once too often and has reason to believe that his bosses don’t much care, has an understandable tendency to prefer to arrest those people who won’t instantly try to stab him, especially if they act a bit snotty and wear more expensive clothes than he personally can afford.

The rate of arrests shot right up, and Swing had been very pleased about that. Admittedly, most of the arrests had been for possessing weaponry after dark, but quite a few had been for assaults on the Watch by irate citizens. That was Assault On A City Official, a very important and despicable crime, and, as such, far more important than all these thefts that were going on everywhere. It wasn’t that the city was lawless. It had plenty of laws. It just didn’t offer many opportunities not to break them. Swing didn’t seem to have grasped the idea that the system was supposed to take criminals and, in some rough-and-ready fashion, force them into becoming honest men. Instead, he’d taken honest men and turned them into criminals. And the Watch, by and large, into just another gang."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

My response is: "OK, then you won't mind going to work naked to morrow."

Wanting to hide part of yourself is normal. Human nature. It doesn't mean you have something nefarious to hide. And the reason you don't mind it is only because you don't realize how intimate the data is they get from you.

In the end it's like with some Trump voters: "Oh, I didn't vote for that!" == "Oh, they collected all this? And this is what they do with it? No, I'm not OK with that." - we've been telling you for years!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

If someone says you have nothing to hide, ask them for their social.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 day ago (3 children)

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

That's very quotable.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Reddit topic in the screenshot is just as quotable and directly points at the root of the problem:

"I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

I'm not worried about the people who choose to close their window shades, I'm worried about the people who apparently need to peek through them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Wish it was shorter though.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Snowden is not a paragon of privacy morality one should seek to emulate; his actions are incredibly hypocritical to pretend to care about privacy after invading everyone else’s privacy, then bouncing to a hostile foreign nation.

Instead, a quote like this would do:

Whoever can pierce your privacy can humiliate you and disrupt your relationships at will. No one (except perhaps a tyrant) has a private life that can survive public exposure by hostile directive.

Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century