[Sivad]

The nothing to hide argument states that government surveillance programs do not threaten privacy unless they uncover illegal activities, and that if they do uncover illegal activities, the person committing these activities does not have the right to keep them private. Hence, a person who favors this argument may state "I've got nothing to hide" and therefore does not express opposition to government surveillance.[1] An individual using this argument may say that a person should not worry about government or surveillance if he/she has "nothing to hide."[2]

The motto "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" has been used in the closed-circuit television program practiced in the United Kingdom.[3]

The problem with the 'I have nothing to hide' logic is that while it may be true that you have nothing to hide, it might not be true for your elected representatives, or your appointed commissioners and regulators, or your judges and prosecutors, or influential individuals in your community like priests or media personalities. It might not be true for the executives and directors of the corporations you work for or have your pension invested in. Any leverage on any of those people connected to you could be used in a way that seriously impacts your life, your family, your community, your country, your world.

And even if there's no dirt to be found on you for anyone to leverage against you personally, what about your children, or your parents, or your siblings, or your friends, or your business partners? Are you sure they have nothing to hide? And if they do could they be leveraged against you?


For anyone who thinks that this might just be paranoia, there are multiple precedents in US history in which the government has used personal dirt to threaten and coerce people. The FBI did it to MLK and many others including congressmen, presidents, and senators, and it has been done to countless targets of law enforcement across the country to coerce confessions or plea deals or to recant accusations or testimony against the prominent and well-connected.

You might say that's all in the past but according to Russ Tice the NSA is still blackmailing many prominent people in media, politics, and industry.

[Sivad]

An outspoken opponent of Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist campaign, US Senator Lester C Hunt challenged McCarthy and his senatorial allies by championing a proposed law restricting Congressional immunity and allowing individuals to sue members of Congress for slanderous statements. In June 1953, Hunt's son was arrested in Washington, D.C., on charges of soliciting sex with an undercover male police officer. (Homosexual acts were prohibited by law at the time.) Several Republican senators, including McCarthy, threatened Hunt with prosecution of his son and wide publication of the event unless he abandoned plans to run for re-election and resigned immediately, which Hunt refused to do. His son was convicted and fined on October 6, 1953. On April 15, 1954, Hunt announced his intention to run for re-election. He changed his mind, however, after McCarthy renewed the threat to use his son's arrest against him. On June 19, 1954, Hunt committed suicide in his Senate office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_C._Hunt

[Citizen J]

The 'nothing to hide' logic is just an excuse for invasive authoritarianism. And it always ends up with some form of special pleading.
"I have nothing to hide", says the arguer. "Since I'm willing to be subject to invasive investigation, everyone should be subject to invasive investigation".

Which is fine - until it's not. Then the arguer finds that every detail of his life is shared with people he does not like, or those who do not like him. And suddenly, he wants to be exempted while still wanting everyone else included.

In many cases, digging into the opinion of those who use that logic often reveals that it was just bravado; that they really would not want themselves subject to highly invasive investigations. This seems to be the case often enough that I generally dismiss those who use this logic. And I actively rebuke those who attempt guilt by association. Hitler adopted an anti-smoking campaign and was strongly against smoking tobacco. Must we all start smoking now to avoid an association with Hitler? Guilt by association is as absurd as reductio ad Hitlerum.

[One Degree]

‘Who is watching the watchers’ is a legitimate concern. So, it is not the surveillance that is the problem, but a lack of faith in government and big business.

[SSDR]

If one doesn't have a problem with the "Nothing to hide" mentality, then I guess they also don't have problems living on the streets, getting their asses kicked, being stabbed, kidnapped, or disrespected. The more one exposes themselves, the more power they lose.

[Potemkin]

The "nothing to hide" logic presupposes that the authorities can be trusted not to misuse their powers. Lol.

[Sivad]

If one doesn't have a problem with the "Nothing to hide" mentality, then I guess they also don't have problems living on the streets, getting their asses kicked, being stabbed, kidnapped, or disrespected. The more one exposes themselves, the more power they lose.

Most of the people that have that nothing to hide mentality are middle and upper-middle class ultra-whitebread conformists who are deeply committed to going along to get along. I think their implicit trust in the world stems from their sheltered, comfortable, vanilla experience of it. They have no experience with extreme cultures like the warrior culture of urban gangs or the highly sophisticated thieves culture of organized crime syndicates, for them that stuff isn't a reality it's just the stuff of movies. So when you tell them that the ruling class is one of those extreme cultures, that in fact it's possibly the most sophisticated predator culture in history, they just find that idea completely absurd because it's so far outside their experience of the world that they can't even imagine it.

And I'm pretty well convinced that it's not just the cushioned security bubble they're born into and grow up in, I think naivete and conformism are actually bred into these people. They self-select for it, it's what allows them to succeed within this system. They've literally domesticated themselves as a breed of blinkered human, babbittry is in their bones.

[ness31]

And I'm pretty well convinced that it's not just the cushioned security bubble they're born into and grow up in, I think naivete and conformism are actually bred into these people. They self-select for it, it's what allows them to succeed within this system. They've literally domesticated themselves as a breed of blinkered human, babbittry is in their bones.

Yes.

It’s interesting to watch what happens when they’re challenged in their belief system. They just cop it because, it’s like, ‘their turn’ or something to take one for the team.

So when you tell them that the ruling class is one of those extreme cultures, that in fact it's possibly the most sophisticated predator culture in history,

They hide in plain sight and they have the law on their side. Formidable.

[SSDR]

@Sivad, That's because those upper middle class fuckers are weak, they snitch on themselves.

[Foxfyre]

I can't argue with what most of you are saying here. And there is another aspect at play also, i.e. that too often those in authority are not always looking for evidence of a crime that they know has been committed or to stop a crime from happening, but they are looking for a crime to pin on somebody they want to 'get'.

How many federal laws are there? Nobody probably knows for sure. It is certain that there are many thousands still active or technically still on the books and there are hundreds of thousands of regulations, all enforceable as law, in how to enforce those laws or what constitutes a violation of those laws, etc. So it is pretty much a given that every single one of us breaks some law on any given day. All they have to do is find some obscure statute that could apply, dust it off, and they have grounds to arrest/charge us or get a FISA warrant to do some serous digging into all our private affairs and that of anybody associated with us.

There are survellance cameras everywhere now, hidden in ceilings, in the eyes of mannikens in stores, placed on street signs. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't secret cameras in dressing rooms and such.

George Orwell might have been a bit off on his timeline, but his thesis of his book 1984 doesn't seem all that far fetched these days.

[chrisw]

‘Who is watching the watchers’ is a legitimate concern. So, it is not the surveillance that is the problem, but a lack of faith in government and big business.

At the end of it all, isn't it up to the individual to protect one's self? You can take measures today in many different ways. Trying to change policy and societal values takes years. Changing your own actions can take minutes.

[One Degree]

At the end of it all, isn't it up to the individual to protect one's self? You can take measures today in many different ways. Trying to change policy and societal values takes years. Changing your own actions can take minutes.

Very true. We just don’t like to sacrifice for the things we want anymore.

[ness31]

easier said then done.

Try buying shelter without having to go through a bank.
Try using a gym without having to sign up online and pay by direct debit.
Try doing anything, buy anything, without being forced into some kind of conversation you don’t want or have to do.

We live in a climate of 100 per cent total surveillance and its oppressive.

[Verv]

The problem with the 'I have nothing to hide' logic is that while it may be true that you have nothing to hide, it might not be true for your elected representatives, or your appointed commissioners and regulators, or your judges and prosecutors, or influential individuals in your community like priests or media personalities. It might not be true for the executives and directors of the corporations you work for or have your pension invested in. Any leverage on any of those people connected to you could be used in a way that seriously impacts your life, your family, your community, your country, your world.

... But wouldn't I want to know if my elected representatives do have something that is worthy of hiding? Shouldn't they be the most transparent of them all?

I feel that this argument kind of fails.

My preferred argument against the surveillance state and the 'nothing to hide' attitude is that power indefinitely ends up becoming corrupt, and it becomes impossible to remove these types of intrusions into our life later.

It's like welfare benefits being paid out to everyone: when people become dependent on it, and used to their presence, and when power structures and politicians campaign on things related to these and depend on it to do their job, it becomes impossible to ever wind them down or draw them back.

[Agent Steel]

I think the whole idea is bullshit anyway because I DO have things to hide. I do NOT want the government to know about them. Simple as that.

[Rancid]

If you have nothing to hide, you should be fine. It's simple and beautiful.

[Drlee]

The 'nothing to hide' logic presupposes that you even know what you ought to hide. These days that is not a given.

Too few people are concerned about privacy. That is a shame.

[One Degree]

There are always two sides. It is also true those who most fear surveillance are those we need to surveil.

[Rancid]

I think the fear is that often people get falsely accused and thrown under the bus on flimsy evidence. Having more surveillance can make this issue even worse.

I think if I ever was falsely thrown in prison, I would likely hang myself... no kidding.

[One Degree]

It is interesting to consider what current increased surveillance has accomplished. I think it is probably undeniable more criminals are caught as a result. I can also think of instances where it may have indicated guilt I or others didn’t agree with.

To me, it is certainly more beneficial in public areas. Electronic communications is a different story.