Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
Then why are the Epstein files being heavily redacted? Does the government have something to hide?
'People with nothing to hide' don't exist. All of us have something that we'd like to keep private or even secret.
Sometimes it's little silly things we do when nobody's watching, like tasting our pets' food. Other times it's porn and what specific kind we read/watch/play. And in a tiny, miniscule minority of cases it's crime. Even fewer of those cases are crimes that actually hurt anyone.
Depriving 99.99% of the population (the remaining 0.01% are politicians) of basic rights just to pretend you're stopping crime that 0.001% of the population is comitting. Pretend, because we know it doesn't even work anyway.
Nearly 25 years of mass, global surveillance by the NSA, CIA and FBI, and they failed to catch even a single terrorist or terrorist-to-be. Meanwhile there's a public shooting almost every day.
It's not just about basic human rights or fundamental principles of society. These programs simply don't work. It's a waste of resources. The only result is bulk data gathering on the citizens. I wonder what that could be used for...?
And when they did catch mass shooters or terrorists it was usually due to an informant or someone who knew the would-be criminal and reported on them.
Meaning a trick that dates literally to antiquity is still the main way they are thwarted.
Ugh, so tired of this old argument. Nothing to hide doesn't mean everything to show. There, now let's get on with our lives.
Back in the late 90s when people started saying that to me, I’d just say ok, get naked RIGHT NOW. What, now you’ve got something to hide?
A few people took me seriously from that but it usually just fell short.
It isn't the best way to say it. A better way is 'show me all your electrical bills from the past . Months, also I want to know how much you weigh right now and I want you to tell me again in three months'.
It will be just as offensive but carry more weight. Also if they blow up in your face just calmly reply with 'what? Is there something wrong? Maybe your health is declining and your job needs to be taken by a healthier person? Are you running a growing operation? Is that why your electric bill struck a nerve?'
People with nothing to hide have the most to lose.
Saying 'I have nothing to fear because I have nothing to hide' is like saying 'I don't care for free speech because I have nothing to say'.
Just wait until we develop psychic powers.
Let's see how private your thoughts will be then.
This is just to get us accustomed to the idea that privacy will be nonexistent at some point.
The CIA already tried that. It isn't going to work.
First attempts almost never work. Just wait until they make it better and develop more powerful psychic abilities like in Stellaris.
Not their pathetic attempts from project stargate
You have nothing to hide?
I used to work in advertising.
I was just doing my job, and striving to do it well, to the very best of my abilities, to serve my client, by maximally getting into your mind, manipulating you, manipulating your perceptions, your preferences, your purchases, by insidiously shaping your associations and implanting suggestions you would not realise happening.
This was over 20 years ago, before Bill Hicks saved me by telling me to kill myself, and I left advertising for good, promising to never do it again.
The things I would have done to you, without your ken, had I then had access to the data-mining available today... ... just the same as those who are still in advertising are doing to you now. [And the resources my team of 2 had, were miniscule, compared to those with millions and billions to invest, and we still managed to shape the culture and prevailing perceptions, so think what kind of influence they have...]
Nothing to hide?
Sure, let advertisers know everything about you, to ease their way playing you like a puppet without you realising.
Nothing to hide?
Why are you not walking around naked then? Just thermal regulation? Or to preserve your dignity? By preserving your privacy? Are you sure you have nothing to hide? If still sure, by all means, invite every perverted voyeur into your bathroom and bedroom and beyond.
You surely have at least two things to hide.
Not hiding them does not just harm you and cause you loss, it harms everybody else too. Your duty to poke big brother (or big baron or big bot or big blight or big bully or big bank) in the eye, is not just to yourself. It's to everybody, each and all.
You have much to hide.
It is almost incredible how advertising has contributed so goddamn much to the erosion of privacy. If data collection was used entirely to do things like improve aiding people (such as language learning. Many apps, like Duolingo and others absolutely use user data to improve their software and develop better ways of teaching languages) it wouldn't be so bad. But to sell people shit? That is just disgusting.
Thank you
That's the thing though...
...everyone has something to hide.
You hear that? As long as you agree with everything that's going on and don't want to change any of it, then you shouldn't be worried about surveillance.
Feels like editorialization to me. The author could at least have titled it "Supreme court asks", rather than making it seem as if the court passed a judgement enabling free surveillance.
The judge posed an oral argument, and the Solicitor General provided a counter. It's good that these comments were recorded as it takes the debate forward and shows that a respected lawyer is taking the side of privacy, even if for the sake of winning his case.
There is a lot to criticize about India (my country), but headlines like these just make people angry or assume that it's hopeless to fight back, because "it's the same everywhere". Recognize the harm that it does to our collective mental health and morale. This article could have been titled "Solicitor General upholds the right to privacy in the Supreme Court", and people would have felt more optimistic and ready to tackle related issues in their own lives. It's all about the way you spin it.
===================================
Article text: The Supreme Court on Friday (December 19, 2025) reasoned that people with nothing to hide need not be bothered about or afraid of surveillance, even as the State of Telangana batted for citizens’ right to privacy, emphasising that even the President of India cannot direct anyone to be put under illegal snooping.
The State reminded the court of its own nine-judge Bench judgment upholding privacy as part of the fundamental right to life under the Constitution.
The top court, the sentinel on the qui vive of fundamental rights, which includes the right to privacy, justified that citizens lived in an “open world”, indicating that those with clear hearts and minds need not be scared of snooping.
The State defended that the question involved was not about an “open or closed world”, but the basic right to be protected against illegal surveillance by the state machinery.
The debate in the court room between the Bench, headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Telangana along with senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, occurred during a hearing in the Telangana phone-tapping case.
“The question is can it [illegal surveillance] be done? The question here is not whether a person is ‘bothered’ or whether he has something to hide,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
The State had sought an extension of the police custody of former Telangana Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T. Prabhakar Rao, who is an accused in the snooping phone-tapping case during the previous BRS government in the State.
“Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?” Justice Nagarathna questioned.
Mr. Mehta asked whether the court was saying if “every government will have a free hand in putting people under surveillance”. He said illegal snooping by the government the Supreme Court was simply not permitted. It was plainly against the law.
“The Supreme Court knows the difference between an ‘open’ world and being under illegal surveillance. My personal communications with my wife… I have a right not to be under surveillance,” Mr. Mehta pointed out.
The top law officer referred to the court’s judgment in the Puttaswamy case, which had upheld privacy as integral to human dignity, liberty and autonomy, encompassing personal intimacies, family life, and sexual orientation.
Though acknowledging at one point that “ideally” surveillance should not be done, Justice Nagarathna’s oral remarks continued to focus on the logic that a person above board personally and professionally had nothing to conceal or feel guilty to fear from the state targeting them through snooping.
“Why should anyone be scared of surveillance? If you have nothing to hide, why should you be afraid?” Justice Nagarathna queried.
The prosecution case against Mr. Rao concerned an alleged conspiracy to “misuse” the resources of SIB for political purposes by putting citizens from different walks of life under surveillance. Those named as accused in the case had allegedly developed profiles of several persons without authorisation. They were accused of monitoring their subjects secretly and illegally, using the information gleaned from snooping in a partisan manner to favour a political party. The accused were also suspected of a conspiracy to destroy records and evidence of their crimes, according to police.
“This was an illegal surveillance without any authority of law under the guise that they were being monitored in connection with left-wing extremism. The information obtained through these illegal means included personal and medical records… This was profiling. It has to stop here. Thereafter they tried to destroy the data and evidence,” Mr. Mehta argued.
The court extended the police custody of Mr. Rao, who had surrendered, till December 25. The Bench directed that he should be released from custody thereafter since the case was pending in the Supreme Court.
The Bench ordered that no coercive steps should be taken against Mr. Rao till the next date of hearing in the top court, January 16, and he should cooperate with the probe when summoned.
Mr. Rao had surrendered before the investigating officer at the Jubilee Hills police station on December 12 on the directions of the top court. He had moved the top court challenging an order of the Telangana High Court which dismissed his plea seeking anticipatory bail.
Published - December 19, 2025 05:56 pm IST
I don't get why they never suggest making it completely public every email, phone call and bank transaction of politicians and judges then... also, please, force them to wear a chip so we can always know their location... it's ok to give it some hours of delay for security reasons, we just need to know where you have been to, no need to worry if you have nothing to hide.
Of all the people in the world that need or should have it mandatory to have round the clock public surveillance ... it should be our political leaders
They claim to be working for the people ... yet the people never really know what the fuck these leaders are doing
Always bad when the net policy is made by old people which confuse an remote control with an smartphone.
Until they do. What is legal today could be illegal tomorrow.
Military is a good example.
First people who were gay were removed.
Then don't ask don't tell.
Then it was okay.
Now it's not and they're being removed and many outed themselves once it was okay.
One day, you're not a terrorist. Then on Sept 22 2025 you are because you don't support fascism.
I may have nothing to hide, but I have absolutely NOTHING I want any govt to see.
I wouldn't want people to know what financial transactions I had in 2008, not because they were suspicious, but because the type of person who wants to know should scare anyone. Imagine if someone came up to you and listed every grocery item you bought in the last ten years I would be very concerned.
Meanwhile we can't release the voter booth footage because privacy of the voters, destroying Right to Information Act because privacy, if you have a lot of money then only do you start to need privacy after all!
The Supreme Leader's court supports a whole justice system of redactors. So I guess there is lots to hide while hypocritically telling us that everything is okay.
Years ago, I read about a guy who rode his bike past a house that was being robbed. The police acquired data from Google placing him in the area at that time. While he didn’t do anything wrong and had nothing to hide, I assume he had to hire a lawyer and go through a time-consuming and stressful process to prove his innocence. That was the turning point for me where I began focusing heavily on privacy.
He is far from the only one who went through a scenario like that.
Also one thing I fucking HATE with a vengeance is how some people say 'the process will eventually work and his/her innocent will get asserted'. That isn't a guarantee, but even if it did... after what? Spending days or weeks in a jail cell? Being treated like a non-human criminal by guards and the system? Spending large amounts of money you won't get back and huge amounts of stress pommelled onto you and your family (and I have heard of some people's family getting so stressed during the process that they had heart attacks and died). Your reputation in society being crushed even if you are acquitted beyond all doubt.
And what if something goes wrong? What if the 'system' fails anyway and you spend years in prison writing appeals to get a second chance. Some people have spent many years, even decades, behind bars doing this, and meanwhile their accusers got to go on with their lives and 100% forgot about everything while you had to take a shit in a cell in front of another cellmate and vice versa. In the TV show Law & Order they had the smug ass prosecutor say that 'mistakes can still be corrected' or something to that effect when talking about a man who was wrongly convicted of a rape he had nothing to do with and spent 30 years behind bars before being acquitted.
That shit made me want to puke. You know what 30 years looks like? 30 years ago was 1995 (or almost 1996, it is December after all). If a person was wrongly accused of rape in December 1995 and they were a 20 year old trade/college student, they would be 50 years old when they are released when the truth comes out. What will life be like for them? Being told that the system 'worked' but basically their lives are utterly destroyed anyway.
I remember reading comments on cracked.com whenever they had an article about how the legal system is so skewed and so fucked that a user would comment with their experience as a lawyer that his sheer disgust at not only the system, but how incredibly petty people can be and how often they get away with it. Like the story of a black guy who was constantly falsely accused of stealing by an elderly white woman who even went so far as to talk to police as to how to convincingly come up with ways to put that n-word in jail. This is even though that black guy was not a thief, drug dealer, drug user, or any other such thing. He was just a guy with a simple job and living a quiet life. But she didn't like him for racist reasons and other crap.
The result? This guy was dragged through the legal system multiple times, but was acquitted each time. In the end the court and the judges realized just what a racist bullshitter the white woman was and put a restraining order against him and dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought back up again under any circumstances.
Happy ending? Nope. The black guy lost his job, his home, his car, all his money, his wife divorced him, and when he was let go from the jail he was held him he literally only had the clothes on his back and no money and was on the other side of the state from where he lived. But hey, at least he didn't have a criminal record... but in many places simply having an arrest record is just as bad. Exactly nothing happened to the elderly white woman who did this to him. She got to live on her life exactly as she did before.
Stories like these never leave my mind.
I feel like there should be circumstances where if you're accused of something and found innocent, you need to be made whole. Maybe that's a huge payout. Maybe you get all your stuff back.
If the police bring you in for questioning because you were riding your bike, and you're shown innocent, they should pay out like $500/hour to you.
Everyone should be bothered by surveillance, it ain't about wrongdoing, it's about further empowering the people who think us suffering and dying for their profits is perfectly acceptable.
"Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'." ― Terry Pratchett, Snuff
"I have nothing to hide" is such a dumb argument.
Are you always going to have nothing to hide?
Because it'll be too late to start caring about privacy when you do.
The problem is this: You don't know what you need to hide or that you even needed to hide it until it is too late.
Look at what is going on in the United States right now, LGBTQ rights are taking a massive beating. While hate crime laws are still in place, that is not a guarantee. Transpeople who revealed they are trans under safer conditions can't take that shit back when someone like Trump and his cronies are in power and abso-fucking-lutely will put transpeople in extermination camps.
I, like many people on many Lemmy platforms, have been anti-Trump for a very long time. I thought Trump was an absolute fool well before his 2015 bid for presidency and I was honest to god shocked that he was taken seriously and actually won! Now basically any criticism of Trump is being prosecuted and Trump critics can and have been violently attacked.
I made numerous posts all over the internet criticizing and mocking Trump. Many have been made using temporary email, but my OPSEC online was eased into, meaning there was a lot of stuff from the past that I used under 'real' emails. My facebook page, which I never wanted (my family made it for me without any concern of what I wanted many years ago) is still active even though I cannot remember the last time I logged in and posted, and it does contain anti-fascist, anti-Trump comments and posts. Deleting the FB page might make denial a little easier, but if they decide to demand any information from FB (who will comply without a warrant) they will see it.
Given that the United States WILL NOT 'go back to normal' once Trump kicks the bucket, there is no telling how the regime would use this data against its opponents.
One of many countries who have recently decided that basic liberty is more trouble than it's worth. Our governments all just need to admit that we are engaged in informational WW3.
Oh dear god, I thought this was the US Supreme Court, which is bound by the 4th Amendment. Turns out this is the Supreme Court from the State of Telangana in India.
It's the Supreme Court of India not Telangana which is a state in India.
Fuck that. RFK wants me to work on his plantations for daring to be born with autism.
What about if a person working for the public sector contacts a journalist about corruption? Or if a nurse contacts a journalist on how bad a hospital (owned by public sector) is controlled? Are those things that are worth hiding? And how should a normal person hide it if everything is monitored?
And what about the future? Even if it is currently legal to be positive to radical ideas such as trans-people, immigration or environment, how will they ensure that a future government doesn't make one of those things illegal and then comes after people who endorsed the radical idea?
Cool. Let me install these cameras in your house, including your bedroom and bathrooms. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
This was posted in another thread yesterday, and I found it particularly persuasive: https://thompson2026.com/blog/deviancy-signal/
There's a special kind of contempt I reserve for the person who says, "I have nothing to hide." It's not the gentle pity you'd have for the naive. It's the cold, hard anger you hold for a collaborator. Because these people aren't just surrendering their own liberty. They're instead actively forging the chains for the rest of us. They are a threat, and I think it's time they were told so.
...
On a societal scale, this inaction becomes a collective betrayal. The power of the Deviancy Signal is directly proportional to the number of people who live transparently. Every person who refuses to practice privacy adds another gallon of clean, clear water to the state's pool, making any ripple of dissent ... any deviation ... starkly visible. This is not a passive choice. By refusing to help create a chaotic, noisy baseline of universal privacy, you are actively making the system more effective. You are failing to do your part to make the baseline all deviant, and in doing so, you make us all more vulnerable.
But there are no such people with nothing to hide.
I presume they're okay with the first surveillance cameras being in their bedrooms then.
The Stasi said the same thing, and similar levels of surveillance are significantly cheaper now.
I had this conversation about privacy a week ago with a colleague. Not sure if it matters but she’s 21. She’s addicted to TikTok and was wondering why I did not use it.
I told her, I don’t trust the makers of it and don’t trust the country the app comes from (China, CCP). I half explained it was because of privacy issues. She looked me dead in the eyes and said “I don’t have anything to hide”.
So I simply said something along lines of;
“of course you don’t. The messages you sent to your boyfriend are not of intimacy things right? Certain pictures you send. Political conversations, your behavior patterns, religion. None of that matters right? Until it can be all used against you. If you care enough, I recommend to just research a couple of things up. Like for example Facebooks Cambridge scandal and Meta’s meddling with politics. Now imagine that from your own government”.
But of course, she shrugged it off and said she did not care.