[Terr_]

Many "nothing to hide" proponents implicitly assume the only problem involves fact-based investigation by mostly-principled agents of a non-corrupt regime that has the same values people are comfy with today. However that's nowhere near the whole issue.

We should also be scared of cases where some investigator or agency goes: "We need to make an example of somebody and That Dude is close enough."

Or where regime changes and suddenly everything you didn't care about is dangerous and does need to be hidden, like where volunteering in a pro-democracy group or having an abortion retroactively becomes a sentence to the reeducation gulag.

> 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'.

-- Snuff by Terry Pratchett

[trgn]

Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.

[ikekkdcjkfke]

Eh, the real issue is companies are being hacked, or they sell data to criminals

[trod123]

The real issue is companies are incentivized to be hacked, and to collect everything so they can sell it as a subscription.

They have almost no liability for improperly securing their own systems and they allocate their budget accordingly.

There is a general presumption of no liability for software flaws. The execs gamble at whether or not they'll be hit with a data breach, or hit the jackpot (before they move on with their shares vested).

Its a simple calculus of headcount affected by cost of identity protection services for x time vs. ongoing recurring costs.