The "I've got nothing to hide" Arguement

Ardentfrost · 07-11-2007, 04:02 PM

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...#PaperDownload

The 25 page PDF is downloadable from the link.

It's actually a good read. It points out why the argument is annoyingly difficult to counter, but is so obvious that it is a horrible argument. He says the root of the problem with the argument is how it assumes to define privacy as a simple set of tidbits of information, the knowledge of which would only harm someone breaking the law.

He criticizes many definitions of privacy, most of them being too narrow or too broad, and attempts to better explain privacy and its importance. He even shows a taxonomy of privacy to describe in what ways exactly it is bad for society for it to be breached.

I suggest reading it... if you've used the argument or if you've seen the argument used (which should be everyone

) it's worth the read.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 04:13 PM

Lemon Party

DosEquis · 07-11-2007, 04:21 PM

I would like to apply the "nothing to hide" logic when it comes to the administraiton. They refuse to testify under oath, refuse to release documents, claim they "lost" thousands of emails, etc etc.

If they had nothing to hide why don't they just fork it over.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 05:19 PM

Honestly I don't think he did a good job of making the arguement. I agree that the "I've got nothing to hide" argument is flawed and logically unsound, but this author did a better job of arguing FOR the "nothing to hide" arguement than he did against.
The right to "Privacy" is a somewhat recent development in the US, the supreme court has interpreted a collection of several items in the bill of rights, when viewed together, in a way that seem to grant a right to privacy. Some people even argue that we don't even have this right as it's not expressley granted in the constitution.
Privacy IS often times counter to the public good, although this author asserts the opposite without really stating why. He spent too much time talking about vauge concepts of the value of privacy, but then gave concrete examples of why "i've got nothing to hide" is valid. In the last couple paragraphs he hit upon a good point, but the rest could have been put alot more simply.
Our right to privacy is a check on the power of the government. If the government wants to infringe upon that right, they need approval and oversight to do so, to ensure that the government is acting in our best interests. It's really that simple.

Ardentfrost · 07-11-2007, 07:14 PM

no no, you misunderstood his point at the beginning if you think that. He was outlining facets of the "nothing to hide" argument to illustrate why it's not so simple to counter (annoyingly so), and yet anyone should be able to realize it's not a sound argument.

The flaw, as he points out in the entire 2nd third of the paper, is in how people define privacy.

The eventualities of the "nothing to hide" line of thinking (eg., why it's so dangerous) is outlined in the last third. It's a lot more than just giving up your privacy (whether you want to or not) to the gov't, but the reaction to it of "watching what you say" and shit. It turns into a "chilling" (as he calls it) of freedom of speech. It's not a complete freeze, as they are not telling you what you can and cannot say, however if you say certain things, you might be thought of as a terrorist (or, at least that's the implication if they are allowed to infringe on the privacy unchecked).

RMNIXON · 07-11-2007, 07:30 PM

It is like saying we should let the police search all houses or other private property whenever they want. What do you have to hide if you are not breaking the law? And sure enough they will turn up a number of criminals, but the end result is a Police State.

tbone · 07-11-2007, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

It is like saying we should let the police search all houses or other private property whenever they want. What do you have to hide if you are not breaking the law? And sure enough they will turn up a number of criminals, but the end result is a Police State.

Nope not like that at all. It's like saying your employer/company can't spy on your e-mails, track the websites you visit, the people you call, stuff you write, conversations you have, etc.

Oh WAIT they can and do. It's not invading their personal lives, it's invading their jobs for which they freely chose and invested money and time to do. And WE are their employers which means they have to answer to us and we get to choose if they have oversight or not. Otherwise I would choose to have my employer not keep a record of my e-mails or things I do with my work computer. State employees would not have electronic communication triple backed up in case the AG ever needs it, etc.

Ardentfrost · 07-11-2007, 08:52 PM

Are you trying to say that the American Gov't is like our company and we its employees?

If so, that is the absolutely worst shit I've ever heard in my life.

Kytro · 07-11-2007, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Are you trying to say that the American Gov't is like our company and we its employees?

If so, that is the absolutely worst shit I've ever heard in my life.

I think they meant the other way around

tbone · 07-12-2007, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Are you trying to say that the American Gov't is like our company and we its employees?

If so, that is the absolutely worst shit I've ever heard in my life.

US gov't are our employees. We pay their salaries and we elect their leaders.

Ardentfrost · 07-12-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

US gov't are our employees. We pay their salaries and we elect their leaders.

Ah, ok... I approve of that metaphor then

RMNIXON · 07-12-2007, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Are you trying to say that the American Gov't is like our company and we its employees?

If so, that is the absolutely worst shit I've ever heard in my life.

RMNIXON · 07-12-2007, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

US gov't are our employees. We pay their salaries and we elect their leaders.

In that case I want to see all the Clinton Whitehouse E-mails!