zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. GuB-42+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-08-13 23:36:47
The article addresses that exact retort, and others in the same style. Here is what it says.

> Such responses only attack the nothing to hide argument in its most extreme form, which is not particularly strong.

The article is way more nuanced, it makes a point in attacking the real argument and not the strawman. Framing the debate into a privacy/security tradeoff.

And btw, my naked body ranks pretty low in the list of things I want to hide. I just don't walk around naked in public because most people wouldn't want me to, it may even be illegal. It is interesting however how a government that says you should have nothing to hide when it comes to surveillance also says that naked bodies must stay hidden.

replies(1): >>quickt+9E
2. quickt+9E[view] [source] 2023-08-14 06:52:55
>>GuB-42+(OP)
The most private part of your body is often not covered anyway. Your fingerprint.
replies(2): >>b3lved+vF >>dredmo+FZ6
◧◩
3. b3lved+vF[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-14 07:10:28
>>quickt+9E
In that perspective one could also mention that humans constantly keep discarding things that can possibly uniqeuely identify them: dna.
◧◩
4. dredmo+FZ6[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-16 03:43:10
>>quickt+9E
Or iris.

And then there's the people whose minds are so open their brains are falling out ... ;-)

[go to top]