Privacy Is Not Secrecy; Debunking The 'If You've Got Nothing To Hide...' Argument
from the well-done dept
We've all heard the "if you've got nothing to hide, what are you complaining about" argument concerning violations of privacy. In fact, it seems to come up in nearly every blog post we do on the subject -- especially on stories about TSA scans and gropes. There have been plenty of attempts over the year to debunk this faulty line of arguing, and Michael Scott points us to a lengthy, but excellent, article by Daniel Solove that explains why privacy matters, even if you've got nothing to hide. The article actually goes through a bunch of the counter arguments that people bring up (such as asking people to hand over their credit card bills or asking them to share naked photos), but Solove points out that these sorts of extreme responses don't even get to the crux of the matter. It's not just about the stuff we want to keep secret:Commentators often attempt to refute the nothing-to-hide argument by pointing to things people want to hide. But 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.It goes on to note that even if you have nothing to hide, there are plenty of reasons why a loss of privacy should concern you:
The deeper problem with the nothing-to-hide argument is that it myopically views privacy as a form of secrecy. In contrast, 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.
One such harm, for example, which I call aggregation, emerges from the fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data. When combined, the information becomes much more telling. By joining pieces of information we might not take pains to guard, the government can glean information about us that we might indeed wish to conceal. For example, suppose you bought a book about cancer. This purchase isn't very revealing on its own, for it indicates just an interest in the disease. Suppose you bought a wig. The purchase of a wig, by itself, could be for a number of reasons. But combine those two pieces of information, and now the inference can be made that you have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy. That might be a fact you wouldn't mind sharing, but you'd certainly want to have the choice.There's a lot more in the article as well, and it seems like this will be a good one to point people to the next time they make this bogus argument.
Another potential problem with the government's harvest of personal data is one I call exclusion. Exclusion occurs when people are prevented from having knowledge about how information about them is being used, and when they are barred from accessing and correcting errors in that data. Many government national-security measures involve maintaining a huge database of information that individuals cannot access. Indeed, because they involve national security, the very existence of these programs is often kept secret. This kind of information processing, which blocks subjects' knowledge and involvement, is a kind of due-process problem. It is a structural problem, involving the way people are treated by government institutions and creating a power imbalance between people and the government. To what extent should government officials have such a significant power over citizens? This issue isn't about what information people want to hide but about the power and the structure of government.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: daniel solove, nothing to hide, privacy, secrecy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Solove papers
Understanding Privacy: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1127888
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
They're good for reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solove papers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solove papers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=249137
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That can be that they are attracted to black women, that can be that they are attracted to men, etc.
It's time to stop with the bunk that people have 'nothing to hide' unless we totally legalize everything save murder, forcible rape, stealing from someone, physically assaulting another person, and forcing someone to do or not do something that they do not or do wish to do (sexual or not, regardless of age or lack of age).
THEN, people will have 'nothing to hide' because the police will not be able to look at something you are doing, look up an obscure law because they don't like what you are doing, and put your butt in jail for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, that does still fit into what I posted.
Until we limit out laws to what I laid out above..... we are going to have them used WAY too often to force religious and non-religious 'morality' (more like people's personal likes and dislikes) on various groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What mr. Schneier said on the subject:
Still relevant. Eternally relevant, actually!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doing nothing wrong.
"If you've got nothing to hide" won't save you when any number of government agencies are free to sift through everything until they can extrapolate an actionable mountain out of your previously private molehills.
There are people in prison who had nothing to hide and did nothing wrong. The level of effort put into fitting them for the crime vastly outweighs the search for evidence to the contrary. Give anyone enough data and they can start cobbling together correlation with a minimum of effort.
The other key is another hackneyed phrase: "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." The article makes the point that privacy isn't handed over in one big, all-encompassing chunk. It's whittled away until there's nothing left. Legislative creep thanks to the unwinnable Wars against Terror and Drugs has progressively opened every US citizen to a variety of "ongoing" investigations that won't end until someone can find something to use against you.
This doesn't even touch on the abuse of information that's already freely available to government agencies. Multiple cases of government employees accessing records just because they have the access have been reported. Here's one:
http://www.aclum.org/news_5.6.09
There's no reason for a government employee to be searching a celebrity's records other than morbid curiosity. You sit someone in front of a wide array of private information long enough and bad things will happen. Humans are like that. And to expect that just handing over an incredible amount of information to anyone, much less a government agency (most of whom run unchecked or with a bare minimum of oversight), and expecting it only to be used "correctly" is sheer ignorance.
Add to this the fact that the government wants this to be a one-way street and it's even more disturbing. They want every citizen to be an open book, but they throw around "state secrets" and "interest of national security" whenever anyone asks for a peek behind their curtains. That will also never change. This is also standard human behavior, especially with those who will always have the law on their side. Always. Because if the law becomes inconvenient, it gets changed or re-interpreted.
Of all the differences between the "haves" and "have-nots," this is the gap that increases the most year after year. Why the hell do we, as taxpayers and citizens, need to jump through regulatory hoops (like FOIA requests) just to get a half-assed and mostly redacted answer from our government. It's our government and yet, it seems to find the most fulfillment in steadily making life worse for its constituents.
They also thrive on the fact that there is very little rollback on legislation. Once it's on the books, it never comes off. It only gets added to, tacked onto unrelated bills or shoved through during midnight sessions. It's gone well past erosion. (A term that cheapens what's actually happening, suggesting that it's "natural". In other words, unstoppable. You can't change "nature.") At this point, it's strip-mining.
Yeah. "Nothing to hide." Not even my naked contempt for every single politician and law enforcement official that uses any shitty excuse to extend their power and marginalize their citizens into a loose confederation of "suspects."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doing nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It will always be so...
"Give me three sentences written by the most innocent man, and I will find a reason to hang him"
Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)
�Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.�
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865)
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
(Sorry for referencing Ayn Rand but on this point she was correct.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbingly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Things to hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera Crew
If you got nothing to hide, then you won't mind never having any privacy again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't object"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have nothing to hide ...
why do you have curtains/blinds on your windows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you have nothing to hide ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you have nothing to hide ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you have nothing to hide ...
I actually read that there's some kind of flying "thing" that can see through roofs that the gov't is working on. I didn't do any further research after gasping to get my breath back but I did read that somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you have nothing to hide ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I told them I was fine with giving them a sample for exculpatory purposes... but I damned well was not going to have my DNA sitting somewhere where someone can use the various methods they have to 'copy it', plant it at a crime scene, and get me sent to prison/jail.
Yes, I sound paranoid.... but considering some of my viewpoints on some subjects ranging from sexuality to feminism being out of control today? I'm not really, and even my mother and father who don't share those viewpoints agree with me on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it wants to see what you wrote before it posts has nothing to do with violating your privacy or exposing your identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry - what?!?!?
I don't understand - are you implying that the "review" somehow removes your privacy? If so, please explain.
If not, what the hell does it have to do with the discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, the whole "if you have nothing to hide" concept is the complete antithesis of "Innocent until proven guilty".
So a better response is this: "If you have no probable cause, I have nothing to show you".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does the White House have fences? What about Military bases?
If they have nothing to hide then....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Why privacy matters, even if you've got nothing to hide"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we bring Mark Zuckerberg into the discussion?
Facebook's Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over: "Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience yesterday that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public, not private as it was for years until the company changed dramatically in December."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More importantly, it is about mental health!
Bruce Schneier is absolutely on point with this.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you have nothing to hide...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if you have nothing to hide...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://madisonian.net/2011/05/26/of-debunking-and-willful-distortions/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you've got evidence I'm doing something wrong, search me.
It goes against the basic presumption of innocent until proven guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A quote I liked
In any case, this article did remind me of a quote from that book that showed yet another example of why wanting privacy does not always mean you are hiding something:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The creation of a "profile" based on items chosen at a life's buffet, with no context, is "making a case." And this is the problem. The inference that all of the pieces of your life add up to what we say the add up to, is the issue.
In most countries on is guilty until proven innocent, and the way in which you prove you are innocent is to prove your story for the wig, the book, and the dvd is better then the story created by the antagonist. the problem there is, the antagonist gets to go first in all matters of justice, and you have to not only undo what they said, but create a more believable narrative for the parts of your life that have been selected based on the fact that they do in fact prove guilt when isolated out and assembled out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riiight...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to hide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]