经济与社会科学2013papers.ssrn.com
“我没什么可隐瞒的”及其他对隐私的误解 (2007)
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (2007)
入门 · 约 80 分钟读完前置知识：隐私权基本概念、法律论证阅读、监控与数据聚合
导读
这是 Daniel Solove 2007 年发表的经典隐私法论文，专门拆解“我没什么可隐藏，所以不在乎隐私”这一常见论证。论文认为该论证把隐私狭隘地等同于“隐瞒坏事”，忽视了即使是对守法公民，监控与信息聚合也会带来系统性风险；文中还刻意把“没什么可隐藏”重构成一个更有力的版本，再加以回应。它此后成为监控与隐私辩论中被引用最多的反驳之一。
HN 关注点：“没什么可隐藏”是支持监控的最常见挡箭牌，HN 读者围绕“如何有效反驳它”展开讨论：斯诺登的类比、合同与银行条款带来的保密义务，以及“多数人没读原文、论文其实正视了这个论证的强度”的提醒。
后来怎么样
发表后成为隐私与监控辩论中反驳“没什么可隐藏”论证的标准参考文献，并持续影响隐私权与政府监控的讨论。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 补充 2 亲历 1
补充提醒多数评论者没读原文：论文把“没什么可隐藏”重构为相当有说服力的版本（披露有限、只有违法者才需隐藏、安全利益压过隐私利益），因此反驳它并不容易。
看起来没多少人真正读了这篇文章。文章把“没什么可隐藏”的论点表述如下，而这个版本要难反驳得多： “因此，比流行话语中常见的表述更有说服力的是，这一论点是这样展开的：NSA 的监控、数据挖掘或其他政府信息收集项目，只会把某些特定信息透露给少数政府官员，或者只透露给政府电脑。这种对特定信息的极为有限的披露，不太可能威胁到守法公民的隐私。只有从事非法活动的人才需要隐藏这些信息。虽然在某些情况下这些信息对守法公民来说可能敏感或令人尴尬，但有限的披露减轻了对隐私的威胁。此外，侦测、调查和防范恐怖袭击的安全利益非常高，压过守法公民在这些特定信息上可能拥有的任何微小或中等的隐私利益。 这样表述之后，‘没什么可隐藏’的论点就是一个强大的对手。”
numlocked查看英文原文
Doesn’t look like many are reading the actual article. It sets up the “nothing to hide” argument as the following, which is quite a bit more difficult to rebut: “ Therefore, in a more compelling form than is often expressed in popular discourse, the nothing to hide argument proceeds as follows: The NSA surveillance, data mining, or other government information- gathering programs will result in the disclosure of particular pieces of information to a few government officials, or perhaps only to government computers. This very limited disclosure of the particular information involved is not likely to be threatening to the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Only those who are engaged in illegal activities have a reason to hide this information. Although there may be some cases in which the information might be sensitive or embarrassing to law-abiding citizens, the limited disclosure lessens the threat to privacy. Moreover, the security interest in detecting, investigating, and preventing terrorist attacks is very high and outweighs whatever minimal or moderate privacy interests law-abiding citizens may have in these particular pieces of information. Cast in this manner, the nothing to hide argument is a formidable one.”
补充合同与银行条款强制要求我们对 PIN、验证码等严格保密，所以“没什么可隐藏”在事实上不成立，隐私保护恰恰是履行保密义务的前提。
反驳“我没什么可隐藏”最有力的论点之一是：这个说法是错的，因为我们中的许多人实际上必须隐藏一些东西。比如你申请 Visa 或 Mastercard 信用卡时必须同意的条款（原文链接见评论）： “持卡人不得向任何人透露指定的 PIN 码、自己设置的 PIN 码或 Secure Code，甚至不能告诉 card complete 的员工。持卡人有责任对所有卡片安全信息严格保密——PIN、Secure Code，以及手机收到的 mobileTAN（用于认证交易，收到后最多 5 分钟有效）——并采取一切合理预防措施确保他人无法获取。” 因此，如果你签署了这些条款，你就有义务对这些信息保密。其他卡以及其他场合（与银行、保险公司沟通等）也对客户施加了类似义务。为了保守这些秘密，我们需要安全的存储方式和安全的通信方式。
triska查看英文原文
The most striking argument against "I've got nothing to hide" is that it's wrong, because many of us in fact must hide something: Take for instance the terms and conditions that you have to agree to when you sign up for a Visa card or Mastercard: https://www.cardcomplete.com/media/medialibrary/2021/03/AGBs_Kreditkarten_ENG_0719.pdf Quoting from the text (section 5.5): "The Cardholder must not disclose the assigned PIN, nor any personally chosen PIN (see Item 17.8.), nor the Secure Code to anyone, not even to employees of card complete. The Cardholder is responsible for ensuring strict secrecy concerning all card security details – PIN, Secure Code and mobileTANs received on his/her telephone (to be used for authenticating a ViS/MCID transaction and valid for a maximum of 5 minutes after receipt) – and must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that they cannot be discovered by others." Thus, if you sign these conditions, you are obligated to keep this information secret. Similar obligations are imposed on customers for other cards and in other circumstances, in communication with banks, insurance companies etc. To keep these secrets, we need secure ways to store this information, and secure ways to communicate.
支持以斯诺登的名言作类比：隐私权和言论自由一样是权利本身，而不是藏污纳垢的工具。
我喜欢斯诺登的论证：“说你因为没什么可隐藏而不在乎隐私权，就好比说你因为没什么可说而不在乎言论自由。”
shantnutiwari查看英文原文
I liked Snowden argument: “Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7308507-arguing-that-you-don-t-care-about-the-right-to-privacy
亲历以牧师一边说“没什么可隐藏”、一边视辅导谈话为神圣不可侵犯的亲身例子，说明该说法自相矛盾；并悲观地认为监控扩张的钟摆不会回摆。
大约30年前我就为 Echelon（梯队监听系统）感到愤怒，后来《爱国者法案》又让我更加愤怒。还有互联网关闭开关，等等等等。我跟我的牧师聊起这些事，他给了我一句“我没什么可隐藏的”。没错，他本人无可指摘，愿意把自己的一切摊开，但他认为与接受辅导者的谈话是神圣不可侵犯的。他会愿意自己的短信和邮件被公开吗？当然不会。就算是他，也绝对有需要隐藏的东西！ 我的牧师是个智慧超乎常人的人，他说的几乎每件事后来都被证明是对的。关于《爱国者法案》，他同意政府可能越权了，但他说这类事情就像钟摆，最终会摆回来。在这个问题上，他完全错了。钟摆只会一直朝一个方向摆。问题在于美国政治的左右两派都参与其中，所以我不知道什么才能纠正这个方向。看起来最终我们会走向中国式的社会信用评分公民制度，只不过由企业而不是政府来运营。
TheRealDunkirk查看英文原文
I got upset about Echelon, almost 30 years ago, and then got further upset with the Patriot Act. The internet kill switch. Etc. Et. al. In speaking with my pastor about these things, he gave me the line, "I've got nothing to hide." Sure, he, personally, is above reproach, and would lay his life bare, but he considers conversations with people he counsels to be sacrosanct. Would he like his text messages and emails published? Of course not. Even he absolutely DOES have things to hide! My pastor is a superhumanly wise person. Almost everything he has said has turned out to be true. Of the Patriot Act, he agreed that the government probably overreached, but he said these things are like a pendulum, and eventually it would swing back. On this subject, he has been completely wrong. The pendulum just keeps going. The problem is that both sides of US politics are in on it, so I don't know what will ever correct this course. It seems that, eventually, we'll have Chinese-style, socially-scored citizenship, just run by corporations instead of the government.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2013Hacker News 讨论帖20 分 · 2 评
- 2013Hacker News 讨论帖174 分 · 69 评
- 2019Hacker News 讨论帖210 分 · 54 评
- 2020Hacker News 讨论帖49 分 · 13 评
- 2021Hacker News 讨论帖212 分 · 83 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选