Privacy

Saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't need freedom of speech because you have nothing to say

Everybody has something to hide. You don't publish all your mail, you have a door to your bathroom, or even doors in general. You have blinds on your windows. People need privacy, an area that can be hidden without reprimand and that each individual controls. If you say you have nothing to hide, you are wrong. If you give up your right to privacy, you leave yourself open to blackmail, wrongful accusations, random searches, in short a terrible life. It'd be like living in prison every day for the rest of your life.

This article explains it better than I can.

But, in my own words. The "nothing to hide" argument assumes that laws are always:

1. made for you, never against you.
2. enforced fairly, rationally, sanely.
3. never conflict with the right thing to do.
4. all that matters, so there's no such thing as chilling effect against lawful actions.
5. immutable. (thanks vrek!)

None of those things is even remotely true.

People with "nothing to hide" typically still have blinds on their windows and locks on their doors, so you know that statement isn't true.

Maybe you think you have nothing to hide now, but what if you need to take sensitive photos to send to you or your kid's doctor? There's been at least one case where Google decided to delete a father's entire account for that.

The argument conflates privacy with secrecy. What we want is not to be allowed to "scheme nefariously in secret" but to enjoy ourselves without being watched, in private.

Also: just knowing that you could be watched does change your behavior, even if you have absolutely nothing to hide.

Even if everything you do is completely innocent and wholesome, it can be used against you. It will be used against you.

“I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are.“

• old quote from somewhere

If you happen to live under a dictatorship, you really need even more privacy, because you can’t trust the intentions of the local oppression forces.

Benign things can always be used against you in a court of law by authoritarians. The whole protest = terrorism and donating to liberal causes = funding terrorists for example. Maybe you donated clothing to an organization that aids refugees before. Now you're liable to get warrants for financing immigration crimes and they can start digging for more and more "evidence" until you either end up bankrupt from legal fees or you crack under the pressure. Everyday people with literally nothing to hide have no recourse once the regime sets eyes on you, not to mention shit like following you everywhere and reporting your activities as evidence of flight risk so you can't bond out.

“I need privacy not because my actions are questionable but because your judgement and intentions are”

It's irrelevant to whether other people need privacy. Saying, "I don't care about privacy because I have nothing to hide" is like saying, I don't have cancer so why should I support the search for a cure?

I know your question isn't necessarily US centric, but I'm going to write what I know.

The legal system in the USA is rarely fair or just to the average person. A completely innocent person can be detained and severely punished in a variety of ways from detention, life altering legal fees, coerced into pleading guilty, trial by media / public humiliation, and the police can literally, legally steal your property and money.

Worse, there are so many laws on the books and so many gotchas that essentially everyone in the USA (above a certain age) is breaking / has broken a law. Some things are obvious (driving even 1 MPH over the speed limit is breaking a law), but there are a myriad random things that are technically illegal but the average person doesn't know of, the laws are inconsistent, and they vary from town to town, county to county, state to state, etc.

Privacy helps shield people from some of the negative impacts of these regrettable features of our legal system. For me it really does boil down to the fact that while I myself may not have anything to hide, a right to privacy still protects me from unwarranted persecution / prosecution.

I'm old enough to recall a time when people like me (oh no the gays) were routinely outed and shamed by police even when they'd broken no laws. They'd publish "arrest reports" in the local papers making sure to state that the innocent person who had no charges filed against them was detained leaving the "Brass Bull Bar" (aka the well-known gay bar) or that the suspect was noted to be unclothed in bed with another man when arrested in his home. Basically people who had not actually broken a law, but still punished because at the time these revelations were enough to have people ostracized by family and community, but also it put their lives and health in danger.

Giving up your freedom is like choosing to live in the 1984 novel/movie.

It's not about "hiding" anything. It's about the freedom to not be exploited. It's about the autonomy of one's personhood.

For starters, I have plenty to hide. No honest person uses that fallacious argument.

The fallacy of the argument is that it presumes anything I have to hide must be illegal. But of course that's not true.

Study after study has show that human behavior changes when we know we’re being watched. Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively are less free.

• Edward Snowden

I have nothing to hide. I love the color red. I tell someone that red is better than green.

A new politician comes into power who likes the color green. They decide that green is the best and anyone who disagrees will be put to death.

I had nothing to hide, so my statement is already public. They can now track me down and have me executed.

It doesn't matter that I always liked green. It doesn't matter that my opinions have changed and I now like green more than red. It doesn't matter if they actually care about people's favourite color, or if it's just an excuse to arrest and kill anyone they want.

I may not have anything to hide, but even the most innocent statement can be used against me by anyone with power and no morals.

"I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are."

"I've got nothing to hide"

"Why does your bedroom window have curtains?"

"Because I don't want anybody to .... oh"

Just ask if theyd be ok with a live feed of theit bhole sent to an fbi analyst to aceses a website? If they aren't then ask what their hiding in it.

"hiding" implies something sinister - I ain't got nothing to share. when you don't know the quality and quantity of my morning stool, that ain't something hidden from you, that's something that ain't shared with you.

it's a false dichotomy, strawman fallacy, red herring, etc. all rolled into one, designed to keep you on your heels, defending yourself against baseless accusations.

"Nothing to hide? What about your password? Do you leave your front door unlocked? Do you use the bathroom without closing the door? If you have nothing to hide, what would your reaction be to a stranger rummaging around in your papers?"

Everyone employs secrecy because our society and economic system incentivize taking advantage of other people. Lawyers will often advise regular people to not talk to police beyond a bare minimum, because everybody commits small offenses, and the enforcement is incentivized to find false positives.

Bonus:
"Do I want criminals walking our streets? They already do, and half of them are in gangs that wear light blue uniforms."
"The people with the most anti-social behaviors and who have harmed others the most are the ones who are allowed to keep running society."

Our current public safety approach does not prevent crimes before they happen. Even if you made 90% of people police officers, there would still be crime. Sure, you can catch one offender here and there, but call me back when there's actually a substantial rise in everyone's well-being. Roughly 40% of taxes go to law and order, and as a fully-employed person, I find it hard to imagine losing more than that amount to crime.

I was once assaulted basically right in front of a security camera. I don't really care whether or not they locked up who did it, that won't make a difference to me or anyone else.

Dunno who said it, but "It's not that I have nothing to hide, but there's nothing I have that I want you to see."

"i have nothing to hide"

"ok. give me your SS#, DOB, and your mother's maiden name"

"haywaaaaiiiittaminute"

Google now has the ability to see which lawmakers are talking to which lobbyists at what time thru geolocation. They can scan the contents of their inboxes and know what they are searching for. They can identify family members, associates, and do the same thing with them. They can know the username of any account that is ever signed up to any service using that Gmail address.

Imagine being a lawmaker and trying to crack down on Google when they know who you're talking to, where you are going, whay your constituents are saying to you, and what leverage points to squeeze. Even if you're squeaky clean, is your family, neighbor, etc?

They might not be doing it now. But they definitely could at any point.

I don't want to be surveilled because I want to commit crimes and get away with them.

The argument operates in an idealist realm where the average person is aligned with the ruling class.

The surveillance largely serves to buttress property rights rather than public safety. Further, many technically "illegal" activities are entirely legitimate until the working class is liberated - so resisting the state's ability to deploy mass surveillance is simply part of the class struggle.

Will this convince a bootlicker? No. Yet, this is why the argument is misleading/false.

It's not whether you have anything to hide or not. It's whether those going through your stuff/data can anything of it that they will then claim you were hiding.

The police show up at your door. They tell you they need to search your house. There's a group of them so there's no way you would be able to watch all of them while they search your house. You have no idea why they would want to search your house. Would you feel comfortable letting them search your house since you have nothing illegal? Would you trust them?

Better yet, would you be comfortable allowing them access to search your home at any time with or without your knowledge or consent?

Is there a major difference if the police's searches are only of your digital devices? Do you trust everyone who seeks the job of warrantlessly probing through the private documents of strangers?

It's none of anyone's business "to have something to hide" or not. We all have a right to privacy, full stop. Basic human right.

And counter arguments about criminals are propaganda by companies selling security.

And with today's society we're all guilty of some crime. Counter to the counter arguments.

Flock shit is dystopiac. How long before a story comes out that someone uses it to stalk a person and assault them or for other crimes.

Lots of good stuff here

But I'll add: in an environment where (particularly electronic) surveillance is just a given, and accepted, a government can simply insert false evidence of whatever is illegal in your case. They found it on your phone, you see!

And there's very little you could do to disprove it

You do have something to hide, you just don't realize it.

A motivated actor can easily spin innocuous details of your life into evidence that you are engaging in some kind of 'bad' behavior or are a 'bad' person.

The entire problem with the nothing to hide paradigm is that it inherently assumes you are innocent untill proven guilty.

It assumes those with access to your data are fair, impartial, motivated only by the idea of justice.

This doesn't work when you are functionally, constantly under investigation, not for a particular crime, but for literally any and all possible crimes.

... anyone who has ever had a rumor or gossip spread about them, or just observed that happening to another person, should understand how this works.

You kind of have to be either an idiot or massively sheltered to not understand this.

Oh, there's uh, also some legal precedent, if you're USAsian:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As you can see, the only way to get around this is to just grant the government the ability spy on you by way of basically secret, persistent, broad warrants...

... Or, devise an entire society where the norm is you freely give away all your 'papers and effects', because you didn't read the TOS, clicked the checkbox and then confirm, and that is taken to be a legally binding contract that waives your right to digital privacy.

(Both of those are commonplace, common practice, for roughly 20 years now.)

The “nothing to hide” argument is disingenuous because it is based on the perspective of each person.

The person saying it will believe they have done everything right.

An outsider can only judge based on their own understanding and beliefs.

If the outsider person judging or convicting only cares about getting the W conviction, they will go to whatever lengths they feel are needed to get the W. This is how the US justice system works. If you allow search, they don’t need to find evidence of the original crime, just any crime. There are also some who manufacture crime or stage it to raise this W rate.

Unless you really trust all parties in to be fair in judgement, the statement itself doesn’t hold ground since it usually will end with conflict or burden of proof.

If I said I have nothing to hide in a game where there are no consequences in losing the game, people aren’t going to go at great lengths to prove me wrong because I might not be happy with them which is a lasting consequence compared to a single loss. If it comes with a paycheck, there’s people who would do literally anything.

It's only about you, whereas the people who violate your privacy are all about them.

The other commenters are covering the big reasons. I'll add that there's danger inherent in amassing some kinds of information, regardless of who has access to it at the current moment.

You really think you can convince people who say dumb shit like that? You're always fighting a losing battle with people like that. They only way they'll learn is by experiencing it just like the dumbasses who voted for trump and are now on the front page of leopardsatemyface.

You'll do yourself a big favor by not engaging in arguments like that. It's better for your mental health.

Not the exact same question, but I think a lot of the replies are going to be the same for why do I need a VPN if I'm not breaking any laws

https://lemmy.world/post/42965812

Why do you have curtains? Why do you appreciate locks on bathroom doors? Why don't you give me your email password so I can snoop around? Theres nothing illegal in there right?

I am a criminal walking the streets: weed. Until it's legal yeah I want criminals of certain types walking the street lol

“Give me the man a d I will give you the case against him.”

Having nothing to hide is great, it comes in real handy when you’re not part of the in-group anymore.

One of my gotos is that they may have nothing to hide, but their friends and family (or people who they know who are at risk) might like having privacy. People don't (unusually) live in isolation and others are affected by their actions/choices.

Just ask these people if you can go through their phone. What did they message their parents yesterday? What's in their camera roll? Check out their Amazon orders. Ask if you can take a look at their banking app. There should be no hesitation.