Freedomain Radio

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

The “nothing to hide” argument and its variants are quite prevalent in popular discourse about privacy. Data security expert Bruce Schneier calls it the “most common retort against privacy advocates.”10 Legal scholar Geoffrey Stone refers to it as “all-too-common refrain.”11 The nothing to hide argument is one of the primary arguments made when balancing privacy against security. In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal to trivial, thus making the balance against security concerns a foreordained victory for security. Sometimes the nothing to hide argument is posed as a question: “If you have nothing to hide, then what do you have to fear?” Others ask: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then what do you have to hide?”

In this essay, I will explore the nothing to hide argument and its variants in more depth. Grappling with the nothing to hide argument is important, because the argument reflects the sentiments of a wide percentage of the population. In popular discourse, the nothing to hide argument’s superficial incantations can readily be refuted. But when the argument is made in its strongest form, it is far more formidable.
In order to respond to the nothing to hide argument, it is imperative

Well written.  I'd say the "Nothing to hide" argument begs the question "from whom?"  If the answer is "the government" then the question again is, "who is 'the government'?"

I do like how you subtly pointed out the hypocrisy of the NSA hiding a program that stole private information from countless individuals with the justification that if they had nothing to hide then they were justified in taking it.  Why do they get privacy and we don't? What did they have to hide? Who are they?

Other responses to that argument would be "Can I watch or video tape you showering?"

In the end conclusion though I don't think that lack of oversight is the problem nor do I think that an abstract understanding abou the definition and concept of privacy is the problem either.  The problem is that some people believe that they have the right, without signed consent, to the private information of other people and that they can use violence to attain it.

Nathan:

In the end conclusion though I don't think that lack of oversight is the problem nor do I think that an abstract understanding abou the definition and concept of privacy is the problem either. 

I agree entirely -- the debate over these abstractions about the nature of privacy, and fine-tuning the surveillance rules, misses the big picture. 

The core problem is that people have been conditioned to believe the outrageous lie that the State is generally benevolent and selfless.  To the extent it isn't, they believe, it is a problem with a few bad apples, and not a problem with statism generally. 

Now, if one ASSUMES that the State's activities are generally benevolent and selfless, then any objection on the grounds of privacy ends up focusing on matters such as inconvenience, personal embarassment, etc.  In the context of a benevolent intrusion, the only possible objections are: (a) you are hiding some wrongdoing, or (b) maybe the way the State goes about collecting information is a little too personally disruptive. 

Now, the Elephant in the Room is the fact that the State is neither benevolent nor selfless.  Only after people accept this basic proposition can they see the real problem with surveillance -- it is the precursor to an attack. 

Let's say that some random non-governmental person is going through your trash, filming your comings and goings, collecting data on your bank accounts, your childrens' schools, and monitoring all of your purchases.  The objection that most people would raise to this behavior is not the surveillance in itself, which is essentially harmless.  It affects you not at all.  It does not impede your daily activities.  It doesn't interfere with your life in any way.  So, why would anyone object?  The objection, of course, is that the collecting of all of this personal information is a THREAT.  It indicates a high degree of likelihood that the watcher's NEXT STEP is something objectively harmful -- a kidnapping, rape, murder, theft, etc.  Random people are not assumed to be benevolent and selfless, so his interest in you can safely be assumed to be based on a harmful intent.

The assumption that the State is benevolent and selfless prevents people from worrying about this Next Step issue.  It prevents them from even seeing the threat.  People are not permitted to believe that surveillance is only the precursor to an attack.  Or, if they believe it, they are not permitted to say so publicly.  If you do, you are dismissed as a paranoid kook who sees secret agents hiding behind every lamp post. 

But, as with family dysfunction, it is easier to debate the effects rather than even acknowledge the real issue.

There's another issue: I don't believe that most people who "have nothing to hide" are being honest. Or at least they're not being clear about what they mean. When I've discussed this with people, it usually turns out that "I have nothing to hide" means "I have nothing to hide that I generally would post online or talk about in public." The acid test is to ask someone who "has nothing to hide" what position he used when he last fucked his wife or how he likes to masturbate. Does he always have charitable feelings towards his boss? When he doesn't, is he comfortable with his boss knowing about these feelings?

Most of us have SOMETHING to hide.

I know that in my childhood I had very little privacy which was invaded and violated on a fairly regular basis.  I remember that if I didn't lock my door my parents would just walk right into the room without knocking and waiting for me to answer. If I did lock my door they'd get upset that it was locked. 

On top of this I never felt visible or understood and in fact I felt no desire to share any part of my misunderstood self for fear of certain rejection in the form of disapproval, shaming and judging or worse, violent, humiliating assault and other forms of punishment which further violated the private right to my body, freedom and self ownership.

What I had to hide was myself because it was myself that was made "bad" and "illegal" in my family. 

What I had to hide were the natural desires, those arbitrarily forbidden things I could not explore.

I think that fundamentally the root of privacy concerns lie deep within the history of childhood.

Im gonna break into your house and watch you sleep, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

Magnus:

Nathan:

In the end conclusion though I don't think that lack of oversight is the problem nor do I think that an abstract understanding abou the definition and concept of privacy is the problem either. 

Let's say that some random non-governmental person is going through your trash, filming your comings and goings, collecting data on your bank accounts, your childrens' schools, and monitoring all of your purchases.  The objection that most people would raise to this behavior is not the surveillance in itself, which is essentially harmless.  It affects you not at all.  It does not impede your daily activities.  It doesn't interfere with your life in any way.  So, why would anyone object?  The objection, of course, is that the collecting of all of this personal information is a THREAT.  It indicates a high degree of likelihood that the watcher's NEXT STEP is something objectively harmful -- a kidnapping, rape, murder, theft, etc.  Random people are not assumed to be benevolent and selfless, so his interest in you can safely be assumed to be based on a harmful intent.

The assumption that the State is benevolent and selfless prevents people from worrying about this Next Step issue.  It prevents them from even seeing the threat.  People are not permitted to believe that surveillance is only the precursor to an attack.  Or, if they believe it, they are not permitted to say so publicly.  If you do, you are dismissed as a paranoid kook who sees secret agents hiding behind every lamp post. 

But, as with family dysfunction, it is easier to debate the effects rather than even acknowledge the real issue.

^ This.

If you stop thinking about the State as something special, things start to make sense. People stealing from you at gunpoint is theft and is a serious problem, State or no State. Being kidnapped and raped is a horrible experience and nothing justifies it, State or no State. Creepy people watching you is creepy, State or no State.

Diabolus:

Creepy people watching you is creepy, State or no State.

Well said.

If the USA is doing good, then what did they have to hide with the Wikileaks?

Here's another question, If I've got nothing to hide, what are they looking for?

gdw:

 

Here's another question, If I've got nothing to hide, what are they looking for?

I really like that kind of a response. "You've got nothing to hide, so you've got nothing to worry about" is always such a smug, mean and knee-jerk kind of statement. This is the type of thing that really makes them stop and think.

I just ask people: "if you have nothing to hide, do you mind if I check your anus?". Or insert some other obviously personal space that no one would want you to examine even if they have nothing to hide. I think it helps get the point across that just because you have nothing to hide (in your anus etc) doesn't mean you should voluntarily give up your privacy.