Membership inference attacks (MIAs) aim to determine whether a specific sample was used to train a predictive model. Knowing this may indeed lead to a privacy breach. Arguably, most MIAs, however, make use of the model's prediction scores - the probability of each output given some input - following the intuition that the trained model tends to behave differently on its training data. We argue that this is a fallacy for many modern deep network architectures, e.g., ReLU type neural networks produce almost always high prediction scores far away from the training data. Consequently, MIAs will miserably fail since this behavior leads to high false-positive rates not only on known domains but also on out-of-distribution data and implicitly acts as a defense against MIAs. Specifically, using generative adversarial networks, we are able to produce a potentially infinite number of samples falsely classified as part of the training data. In other words, the threat of MIAs is overestimated and less information is leaked than previously assumed. Moreover, there is actually a trade-off between the overconfidence of classifiers and their susceptibility to MIAs: the more classifiers know when they do not know, making low confidence predictions far away from the training data, the more they reveal the training data.