To be clear, I don’t subscribe to the idea of “Nothing to Hide.” It’s a bullshit argument. The reason why I’m asking this is because I want to be able to explain why it’s bullshit. I don’t like the fact that many people, including ones in my family, are willing giving up their right to privacy simply because they’ve become accustomed to convenience that modern technology has afforded them. I, myself, have been guilty of these but I’m actively taking steps to take back my privacy and potentially help others as well.
Bonus question: Many people will retort with things “Do you want criminals walking our streets?” or bring up an anecdote about how Flock, Ring or any other surveillance companies’ cameras helped solve a crime or found a missing person. Flock themselves have a blog post series called #SolvedStories where they list so-called “success stories” about their cameras solving a case. Of course, I don’t want criminals walking our streets and, sure, those stories might pull my heartstrings but what’s the bigger picture?
“I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are.“
- old quote from somewhere
If you happen to live under a dictatorship, you really need even more privacy, because you can’t trust the intentions of the local oppression forces.
This article explains it better than I can.
But, in my own words. The “nothing to hide” argument assumes that laws are always:
- made for you, never against you.
- enforced fairly, rationally, sanely.
- never conflict with the right thing to do.
- all that matters, so there’s no such thing as chilling effect against lawful actions.
- immutable. (thanks vrek!)
None of those things is even remotely true.
So short answer: “You don’t have anything to hide yet.”
Also 5. Laws never change.
You know what, this is such a good point I’ll add to the list.
Saying you don’t need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don’t need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say
Edward Snowden
Everybody has something to hide. You don’t publish all your mail, you have a door to your bathroom, or even doors in general. You have blinds on your windows. People need privacy, an area that can be hidden without reprimand and that each individual controls. If you say you have nothing to hide, you are wrong. If you give up your right to privacy, you leave yourself open to blackmail, wrongful accusations, random searches, in short a terrible life. It’d be like living in prison every day for the rest of your life.
And it’s up to each person to decide what they want private, for any reason they like.
I’ve never been concerned about people who close their blinds, but I’m very concerned about people who feel they have a right to peek through them.
I have nothing to hide. I love the color red. I tell someone that red is better than green.
A new politician comes into power who likes the color green. They decide that green is the best and anyone who disagrees will be put to death.
I had nothing to hide, so my statement is already public. They can now track me down and have me executed.
It doesn’t matter that I always liked green. It doesn’t matter that my opinions have changed and I now like green more than red. It doesn’t matter if they actually care about people’s favourite color, or if it’s just an excuse to arrest and kill anyone they want.
I may not have anything to hide, but even the most innocent statement can be used against me by anyone with power and no morals.
“I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are.”
The argument conflates privacy with secrecy. What we want is not to be allowed to “scheme nefariously in secret” but to enjoy ourselves without being watched, in private.
Also: just knowing that you could be watched does change your behavior, even if you have absolutely nothing to hide.
Never thought of that way. We all want security; personal, financial, employment, etc. Parents want their children safe from harm. Thinking of this way, I now realize that companies like Flock are exploiting that desire for security by offering a false hope.
This is called “security theater”
Even if everything you do is completely innocent and wholesome, it can be used against you. It will be used against you.
“I need privacy not because my actions are questionable but because your judgement and intentions are”
Study after study has show that human behavior changes when we know we’re being watched. Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively are less free.
- Edward Snowden
People with “nothing to hide” typically still have blinds on their windows and locks on their doors, so you know that statement isn’t true.
Maybe you think you have nothing to hide now, but what if you need to take sensitive photos to send to you or your kid’s doctor? There’s been at least one case where Google decided to delete a father’s entire account for that.
You do have something to hide, you just don’t realize it.
A motivated actor can easily spin innocuous details of your life into evidence that you are engaging in some kind of ‘bad’ behavior or are a ‘bad’ person.
The entire problem with the nothing to hide paradigm is that it inherently assumes you are innocent untill proven guilty.
It assumes those with access to your data are fair, impartial, motivated only by the idea of justice.
This doesn’t work when you are functionally, constantly under investigation, not for a particular crime, but for literally any and all possible crimes.
… anyone who has ever had a rumor or gossip spread about them, or just observed that happening to another person, should understand how this works.
You kind of have to be either an idiot or massively sheltered to not understand this.
Oh, there’s uh, also some legal precedent, if you’re USAsian:
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As you can see, the only way to get around this is to just grant the government the ability spy on you by way of basically secret, persistent, broad warrants…
… Or, devise an entire society where the norm is you freely give away all your ‘papers and effects’, because you didn’t read the TOS, clicked the checkbox and then confirm, and that is taken to be a legally binding contract that waives your right to digital privacy.
(Both of those are commonplace, common practice, for roughly 20 years now.)
“I’ve got nothing to hide”
“Why does your bedroom window have curtains?”
“Because I don’t want anybody to … oh”
“hiding” implies something sinister - I ain’t got nothing to share. when you don’t know the quality and quantity of my morning stool, that ain’t something hidden from you, that’s something that ain’t shared with you.
it’s a false dichotomy, strawman fallacy, red herring, etc. all rolled into one, designed to keep you on your heels, defending yourself against baseless accusations.
“Give me the man a d I will give you the case against him.”
Having nothing to hide is great, it comes in real handy when you’re not part of the in-group anymore.
For starters, I have plenty to hide. No honest person uses that fallacious argument.
The fallacy of the argument is that it presumes anything I have to hide must be illegal. But of course that’s not true.
