“With regards to Internet privacy, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear.” https://www.onlineprivacyfoundation...itudes-to-privacy-among-eu-referendum-voters/ In a defcon talk by Chris Sumner of the Open Privacy Foundation, research around the above statement was presented. While some of this related to correlations with political opinions and manipulation of voters (e.g. by targeted FB ads), I wanted to examine an aspect which is about the relationship between personality and views on privacy (as well as avoiding politics as necessary here). Basically, those who agreed with the statement above were more likely to be Authoritarian, and also older. Younger and more liberal voters were more likely to disagree with the statement. From a personal perspective, I'm not fond of authority and distrust it; not surprisingly, I disagree with the statement. Although I believe I'm rational in doing so, there is the strong possibility that I do so because of other beliefs - and that obviously applies in the converse direction to those who do support authority. I suppose what I take away from these thoughts is: Insist on evidence rather than opinion when someone (especially politicians) make divisive claims; this is additionally difficult when you're told you cannot have the evidence (because national security blah), or where court proceedings and judgements are secret; and where you've been lied to by authority in the past. Do not expect to change people's minds with arguments that make sense to you regarding that statement (or other privacy things). But avoid treating people as idiots (I find it very hard to be other than scathing towards those who advance that opinion). Regardless of your politics, avoid polarisation and succumbing to that tactic from politicians.
"Guilty until proven innocent." - this applies on the internet more than anywhere else. People have a lot to hide, but they do not realize the importance of it until it is too late. Like the man, who was fired, because he played Solitaire at work, it was during his break, but the boss did not like it. Or the couple, who was denied entrance to US on a vacation, because of their post: "We are going to bomb that party." Not to mention even more serious threats like the identity theft or being charged with crimes. https://youtu.be/F7pYHN9iC9I
I think in Britain people are inclined to question what politicians say regardless of their affiliation so you might have half a chance. In America, the polarisation is absolute.
Any good lawyer will tell a client to NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE, if questioned. Even if he/she is not a suspect or person of interest, but merely a possible witness or general information source. There are several good reasons for this, but one is particularly relevant here: Because there are so many complex criminal laws on the books, it's impossible to know in advance what sort of statement will be relevant to a prosecutor in an investigation. There are a host of videos on YouTube in which law professors and criminal defense lawyers demonstrate how just one seemingly simple innocent statement by an innocent person can be used by a prosecutor to obtain a guilty conviction before a jury against that innocent person . On the intertubes we can, in effect, possibly be talking to the police all the time. e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
It's up to the individual. For me even if I have not done anything wrong I do NOT like my privacy data to be freely collected without my expressed permission
“With regards to Internet privacy, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to fear.” "....those who agreed with the statement above were more likely to be Authoritarian, and also older. Younger and more liberal voters were more likely to disagree with the statement...." And older authoritarians have much less presence on social media. Thus maintaining more privacy. With younger liberal voters from their social media you'll know when they s,s & shave. Giving up all their privacy. So it's all nonsense. There is no solution, there is no privacy. And if your name comes up with any of the 3letters & you're using secret agent methods to anonymize yourself then you're really ******.
You also don't invite them into your home while answering "Is that your car parked in front of your house", rather step outside. While the police are in your home cops observes things like my friend thinks it is better to have a sword next to the door instead of a shotgun or anything else illegal he sees (or wants to question). But most cops are good cops, but you still have to be careful .
Yeah the old dried up authoritarians again. Hopefully the rest of the people still have the ***** to stand up to the government.
It's like saying people shouldn't be entitled to pull the blinds in their house, or build a fence around their yard... because if they do so they must have something to hide. Even if all I'm doing is watching a Youtube video of grass growing it's my own business and nobody elses, and I'll use a VPN to do it.
If you lock your doors, you must be a criminal, hiding something, because good citizens leave the back door open.
Well, I don't lock my doors. But then, I live in a small community. Neighbors notice strangers, and will tell you if they see someone near your home.
We have ninja weapons. Plus I have been studying quantum mechanics so it is not possible for an assailant to know where I am because my ninja skills allow me to exist in a quantum state.
