logoalt Hacker News

tqiyesterday at 11:15 PM1 replyview on HN

> You’re not happy about it, but you hand over a photo of your passport and hope it doesn’t come back to haunt you.

I think for this argument to carry weight with voters, privacy advocates need to be much more specific about what "coming back to haunt you" looks like. They do a little bit of it later on[1], but I think most people do a rough cost benefit in their head and decide that the small benefit outweighs the small risk (to them).

[1] "And that creates a lot of risks for data breaches, overly broad data collection and retention, censorial legal demands for collected data, corporate and governmental malfeasance, pressure to self-censor, and perhaps blatant First Amendment violations. Every new layer and every new mandate brings more potential for risk. As we’ve unfortunately seen many times over the years, people including high-level government officials will maliciously seek to root out the identities of their critics, so the more layers of anonymity we can preserve in online speech, the better."


Replies

kklisurayesterday at 11:54 PM

> privacy advocates need to be much more specific

I'm starting to think we need to lean on conspiracy theories in order to get broader population on train with this - and I'm saying this in utmost regret. That's a borrowing game from a right wing/extremist playbook.

Start with this: requiring IDs online is a first step in micro-chipping the population.

...or how about this: marxists/atifa/nazis/zionists/islamist/whoever-group-people-think-is-in-power want to erode your privacy online so it can be used against you. Some nefarious group what to know your every move!

...or how about this: remember Epstein files!? Well the pedos now want to id your children online!

I simply saying truth/evidence/rational based approach to this will not get people attention. People just don't care.

show 4 replies