More on 'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear'

If you think you have ‘noting to hide, nothing to fear’. a) bullshit. b) read this about why privacy always matters:

For example:

  • “Maybe you have nothing to hide right now, but you will at some point in your life”
  • “Nothing to hide under current laws - how about next week’s new laws?”
  • “You might not think you’ve done anything wrong, but who’s definition of ‘wrong’ is being used?”
  • “Governments have so much access to information about you. Who’ll be interpreting it?”
  • “Once we give away some freedoms for ostensibly more safety, why would the government not ask for more? It was fine before, right?”

From that article:

“understanding privacy as a plurality of related issues demonstrates that the disclosure of bad things is just one among many difficulties caused by government security measures. To return to my discussion of literary metaphors, the problems are not just Orwellian (surveillance/information collection) but Kafkaesque (data analysis/information processing). Government information-gathering programs are problematic even if no information that people want to hide is uncovered.”

Privacy is not about hiding ‘bad’ things:

“the problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is the underlying assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things. By accepting this assumption, we concede far too much ground and invite an unproductive discussion about information that people would very likely want to hide. As the computer-security specialist Schneier aptly notes, the nothing-to-hide argument stems from a faulty “premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong.” Surveillance, for example, can inhibit such lawful activities as free speech, free association, and other First Amendment rights essential for democracy.”