The mistake would be reading Hacker News and walking away with the conclusion that because people don't post that reasoning here that it doesn't exist (and even then, you do find that does come up here on occasion). People with "nothing to hide" do actually believe that, and while they may not post it to HN for vigorous debate. The easy counterexample from history is the list of Jews kept by the Netherlands which was later used against them after they were conquered by Nazi Germany, but you'd have to interested in history to buy that reason. Some people simply shrug at the "if you don't have anything to hide then you won't mind me filming your bedroom" scenario as you being the creep in the equation. Some people just don't want the trouble and are fine with being surveiled because the powers that be are doing it.
To correct the mangling of history, there was no "list of Jews kept by the Netherlands [pre-occupation]". There were only pre-existing Dutch population registries of all people, where the personal details collected by the Dutch had included religion, not for any ill purpose.
(The Nazis subsequently compiled a list, post-occupation, but that's not what you asserted.)
It wasn't a list of Jews, it was a list of everyone from which Jews could be easily identified.
The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy.
This is relevant to data collected by companies and governments today.
Consider a list of children with their parent names and the parents' preferred pronouns. You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy.
> The distinction is important in this context, since the purpose of collecting and keeping the data wasn't specifically to have a list of Jews handy.
How does that make the distinction important? The lesson to draw is "you shouldn't keep a list of Jews, whether you think you're doing it for good reasons or not". The list is a list regardless of whether you think calling it a list is fair in some abstract sense.
> You don't have a list of gays, but you have a list from which gays can be readily identified with high accuracy.
Well, you're almost right. Except of course that you do have a list of gays. That's why Grindr having Chinese ownership was seen as a national security risk.
> Except of course that you do have a list of gays.
If you go to your kindergarten and tell them to stop keeping a list of gays they will look at you weird and most likely dismiss you as a nutjob. Because they don't have a list of gays, they just have a list of kids with their parents' names and pronouns.
That's why I think it's important to keep the distinction rather than conflate the two like you want to.
The Netherlands today is a secular country in which the government doesn't give a flying fuck about your religion or identity.
But the situation in 1940 was very different: religion permeated every fabric of society.
Mind you the government simply took over the job of record keeping from the churches, temples and synagogues.
I am sure Jews today still keep lists about who is a Jew and so does every other religious denomination because such mundane information matters to them.
The reasoning sounds like status quo from the majority group who hasn't experienced discrimination and thinks the powers that be could never become like those awful countries with dictators. Also a complete lack of imagination (and knowledge of the past) about how something considered legal and common now could become criminalized.
