Busting the 'Nothing to Hide' Argument
By Allan Holmes | Monday, July 16, 2007 | 02:25 PM
By Allan Holmes | Monday, July 16, 2007 | 02:25 PM
We've all heard the argument before: "Why should you worry about the government looking into your personal records if you have nothing to hide?" Daniel J. Solove, an associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School, analyzes that argument in a recently published paper titled "I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy."
Solove argues that "the question assumes faulty assumptions about privacy and its value." Those who make the "nothing to hide" argument fail to understand the chilling effect that surveillance has on public discourse, the fact that small bits of private data (which an individual may not object to being uncovered) when put together form a larger and more intimate profile (which an individual may object to), and the mistake of having one's profile mistakenly associated with a group that is labeled as threatening.
Here's an excerpt from the paper, which was published in the latest issue of the San Diego Law Review:
[T]he problem with the “nothing to hide” argument is that it focuses on just one or two particular kinds of privacy problems – the disclosure of personal information or surveillance – and not others. It assumes a particular view about what privacy entails, and it sets the terms for debate in a manner that is often unproductive.It is important to distinguish here between two ways of justifying a program such as the NSA surveillance and data mining program. First is to not recognize a problem. This is how the “nothing to hide” argument works. It denies even the existence of a problem. The second manner of justifying such a program is to acknowledge the problems but contend that the benefits of the NSA program outweigh the privacy harms. The first justification influences the second, for the low value given to privacy is based upon a narrow view of the problem.
The key misunderstanding is that the “nothing to hide” argument views privacy in a particular way – as a form of secrecy, as the right to hide things. But there are many other types of harm involved beyond exposing one’s secrets to the government.
Comments
Wise Old Owl, I am confused. Your current comment appears to refute your comment on the “Cameras, Cameras Everywhere” article.
Combine the data mining techniques of the TIA program, with the availability of our economic lives through commercial collectors, slap on an ever-present all-seeing eye on the street corner, and how much more of a microscope could we live under?
I am not enamored with the omnipotence of the government. It is “by the people”, and they are as fallible as I. I have no desire for Big Brother’s omnipresence in my life, and that includes the commercial versions collecting my every action and transaction.
Mike, you said it true, but instead of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot I would like to spot light our own laudable lout, that great Senator from the state of Wisconsin, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy; because I thought I saw his brother on C-SPAN arguing for NSPS, Homeland Security, and the continuing “War Against Terrorism”.
While I wish to limit the government’s influence on my life to an absolute minimum, I would love to expand our influence on it. While the political pundits are as fallible as I, they have the sole say in our governance. I still have faith in the people. I ask another old question, Why do we not elect our President? Why is there an electoral college that no one can run for and that decides our leader? Why does “Big Brother” think he/she/they know better than each and ever adult in this great nation?
ONE MAN/WOMAN, ONE VOTE.
I fail to see the point that Solove is evidently attempting to make. If I am comfortable with elements of my personal data being monitored, why would I be uncomfortable with the aggregation of these elements?
And yet one can easily imagine how a covert enemy agent could be discovered through the examination of these data. Meanwhile, I sleep well knowing that my government is doing what it can to protect Americans.
The Melian Dialogue | Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 11:09 PMI beleive there is some truth to both sides of the argument. What do you do with a government that has unlimited access to information but fear it? What do you do with a person who has the ability to hide from the entity that has been set up to protect you but fear him? Our world has to be considered a dangerous place. It has been dangerous since Cain killed Abel or before if you take that tack. The key question is how much freedom of thought, movement, and expression are you willing to give up in order to feel like you are more secure? My thought on this matter is that the less the government invades my life the better. Because every time we lose a liberty it becomes that much easier for the government to take it all.And somewhere down the road it will be easy for a despot to take control. As evidenced by Hitler, Stalin, & Pol Pot. That is a problem for the ages I believe and doesn't end because our system of government was so well thought out or fromed but because we are eternally vigilant for our liberties.
Mike | Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 11:10 AMThis is exactly the kind of discourse which can assist all of us in beginning to understand the foundations of our freedom, and the battle to protect them.
One old adage is that if we ignore something long enough, it may go away. We do not want to ignore our freedom.
We, as a society, need to assure that understanding the foundations of freedom continues in academia.
US Citizen | Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 11:06 AMIt is not just the big brothers. The little brothers; commercial data bases, snoopy relatives working in IT, and an army of curious underlings are a problem.
I predict that the first big IT scandal will have nothing to do with the NSA etc. It will be some little shnook using personal information for a divorce etc.
Wise Old Owl | Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 09:28 AMABOUT THIS BLOG
Allan Holmes on what's happening and what's being discussed in the world of federal information technology.
feed