I don't get why they never suggest making it completely public every email, phone call and bank transaction of politicians and judges then... also, please, force them to wear a chip so we can always know their location... it's ok to give it some hours of delay for security reasons, we just need to know where you have been to, no need to worry if you have nothing to hide.

Until they do. What is legal today could be illegal tomorrow.

Years ago, I read about a guy who rode his bike past a house that was being robbed. The police acquired data from Google placing him in the area at that time. While he didn’t do anything wrong and had nothing to hide, I assume he had to hire a lawyer and go through a time-consuming and stressful process to prove his innocence. That was the turning point for me where I began focusing heavily on privacy.

Supreme Court of India was sold out to the ruling party long ago.

"I have nothing to hide" is such a dumb argument.

Are you always going to have nothing to hide?

Because it'll be too late to start caring about privacy when you do.

"Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'." ― Terry Pratchett, Snuff

I presume they're okay with the first surveillance cameras being in their bedrooms then.

Cool. Let me install these cameras in your house, including your bedroom and bathrooms. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

You have nothing to hide?

I used to work in advertising.

I was just doing my job, and striving to do it well, to the very best of my abilities, to serve my client, by maximally getting into your mind, manipulating you, manipulating your perceptions, your preferences, your purchases, by insidiously shaping your associations and implanting suggestions you would not realise happening.

This was over 20 years ago, before Bill Hicks saved me by telling me to kill myself, and I left advertising for good, promising to never do it again.

The things I would have done to you, without your ken, had I then had access to the data-mining available today... ... just the same as those who are still in advertising are doing to you now. [And the resources my team of 2 had, were miniscule, compared to those with millions and billions to invest, and we still managed to shape the culture and prevailing perceptions, so think what kind of influence they have...]

Nothing to hide?

Sure, let advertisers know everything about you, to ease their way playing you like a puppet without you realising.

Nothing to hide?

Why are you not walking around naked then? Just thermal regulation? Or to preserve your dignity? By preserving your privacy? Are you sure you have nothing to hide? If still sure, by all means, invite every perverted voyeur into your bathroom and bedroom and beyond.

You surely have at least two things to hide.

Not hiding them does not just harm you and cause you loss, it harms everybody else too. Your duty to poke big brother (or big baron or big bot or big blight or big bully or big bank) in the eye, is not just to yourself. It's to everybody, each and all.

You have much to hide.

That is a very rapey mentality 

This was posted in another thread yesterday, and I found it particularly persuasive: https://thompson2026.com/blog/deviancy-signal/

There's a special kind of contempt I reserve for the person who says, "I have nothing to hide." It's not the gentle pity you'd have for the naive. It's the cold, hard anger you hold for a collaborator. Because these people aren't just surrendering their own liberty. They're instead actively forging the chains for the rest of us. They are a threat, and I think it's time they were told so.

...

On a societal scale, this inaction becomes a collective betrayal. The power of the Deviancy Signal is directly proportional to the number of people who live transparently. Every person who refuses to practice privacy adds another gallon of clean, clear water to the state's pool, making any ripple of dissent ... any deviation ... starkly visible. This is not a passive choice. By refusing to help create a chaotic, noisy baseline of universal privacy, you are actively making the system more effective. You are failing to do your part to make the baseline all deviant, and in doing so, you make us all more vulnerable.

Everyone should be bothered by surveillance, it ain't about wrongdoing, it's about further empowering the people who think us suffering and dying for their profits is perfectly acceptable.

Oh dear god, I thought this was the US Supreme Court, which is bound by the 4th Amendment. Turns out this is the Supreme Court from the State of Telangana in India.

I had this conversation about privacy a week ago with a colleague. Not sure if it matters but she’s 21. She’s addicted to TikTok and was wondering why I did not use it.

I told her, I don’t trust the makers of it and don’t trust the country the app comes from (China, CCP). I half explained it was because of privacy issues. She looked me dead in the eyes and said “I don’t have anything to hide”.

So I simply said something along lines of;

“of course you don’t. The messages you sent to your boyfriend are not of intimacy things right? Certain pictures you send. Political conversations, your behavior patterns, religion. None of that matters right? Until it can be all used against you. If you care enough, I recommend to just research a couple of things up. Like for example Facebooks Cambridge scandal and Meta’s meddling with politics. Now imagine that from your own government”.

But of course, she shrugged it off and said she did not care.

Then why are the Epstein files being heavily redacted? Does the government have something to hide?

But there are no such people with nothing to hide.

Posts like this are a great test for whether people read the article (or even the first paragraph) before commenting.

Ugh, so tired of this old argument. Nothing to hide doesn't mean everything to show. There, now let's get on with our lives.

Being private as obidient protects being private as disobidient.

To them I'd say, Define "nothing", and then tell me that's a constant.

This is in India, but coming soon to a country near you

It came here first

Hmmm. Wonder how much they have to hide

I’d like to go to one of their houses and tell them I want to search the place. After all, they shouldn’t mind if they have nothing to hide, right?

That's the thing though...
...everyone has something to hide.

I have a lot of things I want to hide from every single government.

Nothing to hide = nothing to show.

The Stasi said the same thing, and similar levels of surveillance are significantly cheaper now.

Fuck that. RFK wants me to work on his plantations for daring to be born with autism.

One of many countries who have recently decided that basic liberty is more trouble than it's worth. Our governments all just need to admit that we are engaged in informational WW3.

What about if a person working for the public sector contacts a journalist about corruption? Or if a nurse contacts a journalist on how bad a hospital (owned by public sector) is controlled? Are those things that are worth hiding? And how should a normal person hide it if everything is monitored?

And what about the future? Even if it is currently legal to be positive to radical ideas such as trans-people, immigration or environment, how will they ensure that a future government doesn't make one of those things illegal and then comes after people who endorsed the radical idea?