安全与隐私chronicle.com编辑精选
为什么隐私很重要，即使你“没什么可隐藏”
Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'
2012 — 2015，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇文章反驳“我没什么可隐藏，所以不必在意隐私”的常见说法，指出隐私不只是遮掩过错，而关乎个人自主、免于被他人和机构支配，以及防止信息被脱离语境地收集和滥用。它把隐私争论从“有没有秘密”转向权力关系与自由。
为什么经久不衰：它把隐私重新定义为对抗权力失衡和监控社会的必要条件，因此在每次大规模数据收集与政府监控争议出现时都值得重读。
HN 评论精选
反驳“没什么可隐藏”的两点：他人无权替你做最终道德判定，监控者自身也有利益和权力动机。
在这个被广泛讨论的话题里，我很惊讶两个要点从未出现：第一，“没什么可隐藏”的前提是旁观者有权最终判定某事对错，从而把被观察者置于旁观者之下；这违背了免于政府无令搜查的自由。不是我有东西要藏，而是别人看到后会来找麻烦。第二，推动这句话的人有可疑且别有用心的动机，他们的收入、工作、权力和声望依赖于找出“问题”，按其职责对我有敌意。他们寻求惩罚的权力，不仅针对发现的问题，也针对无法检查的东西。
ctdonath查看英文原文
In this much-discussed subject, I'm surprised that two huge points never arise: 1. The "if you have nothing to hide..." line is predicated on the viewer having final say about whether something is right/wrong, thus subordinating the subject to the viewer. This is repulsive to the notion of liberty as protected by the American "4th Amendment" right of freedom from governmental inspection without an adjudicated warrant. To wit: it's not that I have something to hide, it's that someone else is going to be obnoxious if they see it. On a related but semantically distinct note... 2. Those pushing "if you have nothing to hide..." have suspect & ulterior motives. Their existence (income, job, power, prestige) depend on finding something "wrong". They are, by job description, hostile to me. If they derived nothing from inspecting others, they would not care whether anything was hidden or not. Remember: they seek the power to punish, not just what they find wrong, but what they cannot inspect. Your exposure nets you little, but gains them so much they want to reprimand you for any concealment.
知识即权力；无面孔的数据收集绕过了人们日常的保密本能，是当代隐私问题的核心。
如果某人知道关于你的事，他就获得了支配你的权力。这是最基本的原因：我们拉窗帘、私下谈话、只向信任的人吐露秘密、有公司机密、谨慎、发言人，不公开谈薪水，都是本能地减少可能占我们便宜的人。知识可被利用的方式太多，很难判断某条信息是否无害；若你受制于人、依赖他不利用这些知识，你就失去自由。有趣的是，一旦没有人脸出现，这种本能似乎失效。当今信息多由网络服务、政府和读卡器收集，它们显得与真实而可能威胁的人无关，我们根深蒂固的保密模式就失灵了。
mduerksen查看英文原文
If someone knows something about you, he gains power over you. This is the most fundamental reason I have seen yet, reflected (often unconsciously) in our daily lives: We have curtains, we talk in private, we have secrets we only tell to those we trust, have company confidentials, discretion, spokesmen, and don't negotiate our salaries in public. Why? Because we instinctively try to minimize those who might take advantage over us. Knowledge can be exploited in so many ways that it is very hard to tell if a certain piece of information is harmless or not. If you're at the mercy of someone else, depending on him not to exploit his knowledge over you, you lose freedom. Most people at least feel this and therefore - in their social interactions - act accordingly. Interestingly, as soon at no human face is involved, my observation is that these instincts break down. I believe that's the core issue today, where most information isn't collected by some creepy stalker, but by web services, governments and card readers. They seem so detached from a real (potentially threatening) person, that our deeply engrained secrecy patterns fail us.
合法身份会随政治变化而改变，历史提醒我们不要让政府掌握一切信息。
1920年代在德国身为犹太人是完全合法的，不久之后就不是了。这是我唯一需要的例子，来说服我政府不需要知道我是谁、我做什么、我想什么的一切。
jgrahamc查看英文原文
In the 1920s being Jewish in Germany was perfectly legal. Not long after it was not. That's the only example I need to convince me that the government does not need to know everything about who am I and what I do and what I think.
“没做错事”被偷换成“政府不喜欢”；政府并非道德裁判，广泛监控权本身就会被滥用。
“没什么可隐藏”论证的根本问题，是它做了几个不应做的随意假设。另一种表述是“如果你没做错事，为什么要怕真相”，但正确的形式应是“如果你没做政府不喜欢的事，为什么要怕真相”。问题不是对错，政府不是道德的绝对裁判，问题是政府权力。想想历史中并不久远、曾经违法却在今天不被视为道德错误的活动：帮助逃奴、同性恋、跨种族婚姻、堕胎等。还要注意我说的是“政府不喜欢”而非“非法”，因为当政府拥有广泛监控权时，政府人员可以轻易惩罚和毁掉人的生活，无论其行为是否非法。我们的治理体系核心就是限制政府权力，一个能独立于人民意志执法的政府正迈向暴政。
InclinedPlane查看英文原文
One fundamental problem with the "nothing to hide" argument is that it makes several casual assumptions which should not be made. An alternate formulation of the saying is "why fear the truth if you have done nothing wrong", which is generally the sentiment of the "nothing to hide" sayings as well. However, the proper form of that saying should be "why fear the truth if you have done nothing the government dislikes". And this is on a much different stance than the others. The issue is not right or wrong, the government is not an absolute arbiter of morality, the issue is government power. Consider how often and how recently in our own history there have been activities which have been illegal and yet not "morally wrong" as considered today. Aiding escaped slaves. Homosexuality. Inter-racial marriage. Abortion. And so forth. Also note how I said "nothing the government dislikes" rather than "nothing illegal". And that's because when a government has broad sweeping powers, especially of surveillance, government agents can easily punish people and ruin people's lives regardless of whether their activities are illegal. Our system of governance has been designed at its core to limit the powers of government. This is very much intentional because it is designed to allow government to enforce the laws only with the cooperation with the public at large. A government that can enforce laws independent of the will of the people is a government poised for the transition to tyranny. There is a reason why the term "police state" is so reviled even though in itself it contains merely mechanical descriptions. And that is because even if a "benign police state" could exist the danger is far too great that the reins of power would be usurped by those seeking their own ends and their own advantages. And the most forceful way to avoid such a catastrophe is again to limit the power of the state.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
非法素数
Illegal prime
维基百科条目，介绍“非法素数”：某些素数之所以被称为“非法”，是因为它们经特定编码后，恰好对应一段被法律禁止传播的数据——最著名的是 DVD 解密程序 DeCSS 的代码，有人把…
安全与隐私上首页 5 次 · 2010–2021en.wikipedia.org编辑精选关于 /dev/urandom 的常见误区
Myths about /dev/urandom
（Thomas Hühn 撰写，2014 年首发并持续更新）逐条反驳关于 /dev/urandom 的常见误解：它与 /dev/random 使用的是同一个 CSPRNG，一旦完…
安全与隐私上首页 5 次 · 2014–20202uo.de编辑精选AES 高级加密标准火柴人图解
A Stick Figure Guide to the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
一篇用火柴人漫画形式讲解 AES（高级加密标准）算法的经典科普文章。
安全与隐私上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022moserware.com编辑精选指纹是用户名，不是密码
Fingerprints are Usernames, not Passwords
作者（eCryptfs 维护者、Ubuntu 安全工程师）认为指纹等生物特征是公开、不可更改的标识，应视作用户名而非密码，不能当作秘密凭据用于认证。
安全与隐私上首页 4 次 · 2013–2017blog.dustinkirkland.comHTTPS 连接的最初几毫秒（2009）
The First Few Milliseconds of an HTTPS Connection (2009)
逐毫秒拆解一次 HTTPS 连接建立时发生了什么，重点讲 TLS 握手、证书验证、RSA 签名与密钥协商等机制，面向不熟悉该领域的读者。
安全与隐私上首页 4 次 · 2009–2020moserware.com编辑精选