[alan-crowe]

My "importance of privacy" story:

I get my gas and electricity from Scottish Power. Recently a rival company, Ovo Energy made a clerical error and sent me a bill, leading to a dispute. The front line of defence against this kind of dispute is that the bills give the serial numbers of the meters. The bill from Scottish Power gives the same meter serial numbers that are embossed on the front of my meters, and is therefore valid. The bill from Ovo Energy gives different serial numbers and is therefore in error.

Picture though the internal processes in Ovo Energy. A second clerk is tasked with attending to the problem. He has a choice. He can change the address to agree with the meter serial numbers, correcting the error. Or he can change the meter serial numbers to those for my address, compounding the error.

Since the meter serial numbers are confidential, to me and Scottish Power, Ovo Energy does not have the second option; they do not know the serial numbers (which are long, like a credit card number, not just 1,2,3,...). Thus the clerical error gets corrected, or just left, but not compounded.

My guess is that confidential information, (such as meter serial numbers, credit card numbers, and account numbers), are the front like of defence against both clerical error and fraud based on impersonation. It is a rather weak defence, but it is light weight, and seems to how much of billing and billing disputes work.

We all have lots to hide: the confidential information that the system needs us to keep confidential to stop clerical errors from compounding.

[luckys]

Where is your contract with Ovo Energy? Companies cannot just go charge random people willy-nilly like that.

[reed1234]

You just read a story of a company doing just that

[mjd]

You have missed the point of the story. GP is not a customer of Ovo energy. They sent him a bill in error.

“Companies cannot just go charge random people”

And yet they do. Anyone can send anyone a bill.

[bobbyschmidd]

telco guy comes in at point x in past, takes a pic of your meters while you don't attend. privacy fucked. but obscuring stuff like that behind temper proof (mwemphasis on proof) the glitter?

[AnimalMuppet]

Your first sentence: That could happen, but they'd have to send someone, which is an expensive process. It would also cross the into deliberate fraud. In the larger picture, privacy protections are not bulletproof. They don't have to be. They just have to be good enough that they (plus laws against violation) restrain most people from violating them.

Your second sentence is incomprehensible. What are you trying to say?

[deepstate25]

This is a valid story and I’m sorry to hear that you went through this. However, it’s a strawman for the current argument from the blog post, which is that living life in the open and acting normal is setting things up for failure, and I don’t believe that it is.

Having nothing to hide is fine. Nothing to hide and doing nothing wrong is least likely to cause trouble.

The blog post’s argument that someone would be more likely to get watched if they start hiding after not hiding is not valid. ALL encrypted and unencrypted communication is a valid target for analysis, but ANY encrypted traffic is obviously more of a concern, just like one person walking into a store brandishing a gun is as alarming as 5 brandishing guns, and it doesn’t matter whether they used to not carry guns into the store.

[rpdillon]

I think Snowden put it well:

> Ultimately, 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.

Your framing suggests that hiding personal messages is akin to carrying a gun into a store, and it's exactly that parallel that the blog post is railing against. Encrypting messages needs to be normal and expected.

[fn-mote]

> Having nothing to hide is fine.

This statement completely fails to engage with the post.

In fact, the parent's whole "argument" ignores the prevalence of encrypted communications in the modern world. To use their (absurd) gun analogy, the modern internet is close to an open-carry state. (Europeans: this means everyone can carry a gun visibly.)

Everyone uses https by default. Phone communications and texts are the least secure by far.

PS There is nothing wrong with the GP's anecdote. It is an excellent argument, understandable argument for casual importance of privacy.

[pineaux]

the name fits the post. I have a different take on "nothing to hide" I think it's a shame that you have nothing to hide. Interesting minds have things to hide. It can be new ideas that are revolutionary and need hidden work to develop into a strong idea. It can be things that challenge the status quo in a dangerous way (for the status quo). It might be gaining freedom from stifling sexual norms. It could be information about your status (rich or poor). If you have nothing to hide, please walk around naked. Never close your curtains. Carry a screen with all your assets and bank accounts. Please carry all your passwords in plain text in your pocket or tattooed on your arm. Keep your address visible on a post-it note on your forehead.

Its just absurd to think you have nothing to hide. If it's not from the state, then it is from other people that mean you harm. That will take advantage of the information you are broadcasting.

[fernando__]

If there were 1 brandishing a gun, I’d be very alarmed.

If there were 5, I’d be even more alarmed.

If everyone in the store and outside the store were always brandishing guns, then it would be a very dangerous place.

Speaking of dangerous places- how about the U.S.?

The U.S. gun death rate is approximately 13.7 per 100,000 people, while the UK rate is roughly 0.04 per 100,000—making the U.S. rate over 300 times higher. This is likely because of UK’s stringent gun laws.

So, if everyone hid their internet traffic, does that mean there would be a 300% increase in hacker crime and convictions? And wouldn’t governments and companies be more likely to develop and use tools for spying on their citizens and employees?