I'm stealing your analogy but I'm also ready for people to smugly proclaim that they would have no issue with livestreaming their entire life since they have nothing to hide.
back
4 comments
That’s the best part. Remind them that it’s not about you. It’s about whistleblowers and journalists who need to protect their sources, and lawyers who need to communicate with their clients. That tends to bring the ego down a peg ;)
But honestly, it’s best not to be aggressive. Some people don’t care much, and you won’t convince them.
FWIW, all my non-technical friends use Signal with me, and they know about verifying safety numbers! It can be done.
> ... It’s about whistleblowers and journalists
They'll say the media is the enemy and whistleblowers are traitors who should be shot on site. I'm not even kidding; they'll say this.
Have you been to my family reunion because I think that may constitute a direct quote. Of course four years ago they espoused the opposite standpoint toward whistle-blowers because obviously the other-side was bad-wrong and this administration is right-good.
> Remind them that it’s not about you.
Unfortunately, as the current coronavirus case data shows, a large number of people here think everything is about them and them alone, so we'll need to make an argument that speaks to them personally. I'm not sure there is one that's universal—as suggested above, asking for their salary might be as close as we might get. That would then leave government employees.
People who actually think this is fine tend to hate journalists and especially lawyers. They might walk away thinking this is a great idea.
May be it's not about 'nothing to hide' vs 'something to hide'. May be it's about inadequate responsibility level for a bar conversation.
When people make public speeches they tend to choose words more carefully because they aware about possible dramatic consequences.
The same level of awareness for each private conversation in the bar can lead to a lot of efforts. It's another level of efforts to formulate things correctly. Sometimes people just need a safe place to formulate and try ideas without worrying about being punished for consequences.
If everything is livestreaming it's hard to achieve certain level of relaxation.Because it becomes a hard work to avoid saying something they didn't mean.
This kind of hard extra work would result in overloads and intentional faking to be on the safe side.
And 'that' is the core damage effect of any mass surveillance: Inability to have a free and open private discussions.
So even when there is 'nothing to hide', there is a lot of work just to 'avoid to show' something you didn't mean.
Or worse, the one's who smugly say you have no expectation of privacy while in public anyway.
Ask them if they'll turn it off in the bathroom or when having sex.