In my mind, countering the i have nothing to hide argument should include an explanation of when security and privacy are related yes, but what you are creating here is an artificial problem nobody is asking you to hand all your passwords and keys to a random stranger. The adherents of the nothing-to-hide argument state that because the information will not be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important” (solove, para. • so my response to the “if you have nothing to hide ” argument is simply, “i don’t need to justify my position you need to justify yours come back with a warrant.
The “nothing to hide” argument forces us to consider privacy in a very narrow manner, and so it implicitly excludes many of these problems to win its argument we need a broader view of privacy problems before we decide that having nothing to conceal means we can accept the diminishing of our privacy. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear—if and only if no one will abuse your information not to mention people just like privacy, and it’s a basic right if someone were to walk in on me having sex, i might be a bit embarrassed, but not unduly bothered. Nothing to hide is a good overview of arguments for privacy protections against the national security state, and for some audiences it's probably a wonderful book it reads like it's written at the 5th grade level, however, and the very simple sentences grate horribly after a while.
If you have nothing to hide then you should have no concern for your privacy this doesn't sound like an argument against privacy protection on the surface, and often it is not it is sometimes used that way, however it seems to me that many institutions would find it convenient if all discussion of privacy issues were to grind to a. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy the data-security expert bruce schneier calls it the most common retort against privacy advocates. One of the most common attitudes of those unconcerned about government surveillance or privacy invasions is “i’ve got nothing to hide” i was talking the issue over one day with a few colleagues in my field, and we all agreed that thus far, those emphasizing the value of privacy had not been.
Nothing to hide have nothing to hide and those that have something to hide should be found out, and get what they have coming to them16 the argument is not only of recent vintage. He then proceeded to obliterate that 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. Our previous post explained that the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument is based on a narrow view of privacy that assumes it is primarily about concealing our wrongs the argument says we shouldn’t be overly concerned about government surveillance programs, because the potential benefits of thwarting terrorist attacks far outweigh any minor sacrifices involving our privacy. You think my concerns about chilled speech and democratic accountability are overblown, and you think privacy concerns are exaggerated and unlikely to affect you or our society in any casebut – and this is the biggest hole in the nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument – how can you know for surein fact, you have no idea if you have. The “nothing-to-hide” paradigm evaluates any breach of privacy only from the perspective of disclosure of unwanted information nevertheless, privacy is a much richer concept than secrecy.
As solove explains, the problem with the nothing to hide argument is with its underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things he warns, agreeing with this assumption concedes far too much ground and leads to an unproductive discussion of information people would likely want or not want to hide. The argument that you have nothing to hide is a fallacy everyone has something to hide or secure from others passwords, credit card numbers, keys, smart phones, websites visited, emails - the list is long. Nothing to hide: the false tradeoff his book review is solove's polemic is a strong and desperately needed collection of frames that counterbalances the nothing to hide argument and other refrains so often used in privacy disputes jm keller wrote in choice:. But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the nothing-to-hide argument, in the end, has nothing to say.
Times change, assuming you will always have nothing to hide is reckless, even if you feel you have nothing to hide now also you, to a great extent, weaken the privacy protections and rights of those around you because you yourself are wide open and compromised, thus exposing people you interact with to a greater extent by the weakness of yourself. More essay examples on solve explains how the nothing-to-hide argument focuses only on one or two minute types of privacy problems, while ignoring the others. This is an easy-to-understand summary of prof daniel solove's critique of the nothing to hide argument (mirror, 2007 blog post, ssrn paper), which is so often brought up in discussions about privacy and civil rights. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing in this essay, solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.
“nothing to hide is a potent and sobering tonic that provides an invaluable antidote to the sort of panicked rhetoric that makes privacy and civil liberties into antiquated relics at best, handmaidens of al qaeda at worst”. Glenn greenwald was one of the first reporters to see -- and write about -- the edward snowden files, with their revelations about the united states' extensive surveillance of private citizens in this searing talk, greenwald makes the case for why you need to care about privacy, even if you're not doing anything you need to hide. Not only that, the nothing-to-hide argument is the idea that human beings have no personal information to hide from the government, which disregards the idea of having any privacy solove says the claim “i’ve got nothing to hide” argument, which is so often mentioned in discussions concerning the government’s gathering and examination.
The cornerstone of liberal democracy is the notion that free speech allows us to create a marketplace of ideas, from which we can use the political process to collectively choose the society we want. Not so very long ago, privacy used to be readily available if you wanted to have a conversation and not be overheard, you could just go for a walk in the woods if you really wanted to make sure, you might even probe the undergrowth with your cane to make sure nobody was hiding in a bush. Ds: the nothing-to-hide argument works by taking an extremely narrow and crabbed view of privacy — that privacy involves keeping dirty secrets and hiding bad things but privacy is a much richer and more nuanced concept.