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.

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.
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:
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.

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.
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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    SJ, May 26th, 2011 @ 1:23am

    Solove papers

    Here are the two papers from Solove for download:

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jan Breens (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 2:16am

      Re: Solove papers

      I was just about to post the same. I can really recommend these as well!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      undrgrndgirl, Mar 21st, 2012 @ 3:19pm

      Re: Solove papers

      thanks for the links! i've been looking for the "i've got nothing to hide" paper. i has seen it a few years ago but didn't bookmark the page and couldn't find it again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    SJ, May 26th, 2011 @ 2:21am

    And if you click on the author on the ssrn site, you'll get a lot more papers by Solove. This far I've only read the two linked ones.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=249137

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 2:53am

    As I keep on saying EVERYONE has something to hide that they don't want other people to know about.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:06am

      Re:

      Legality of your actions is not the sole issue though. Even your own comment states that. There is nothing illegal about finding men or black women attractive, yet some people still would like those personal facts to be private.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Christopher (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:08am

        Re: Re:

        Ah, but I have to point out that AT ONE TIME, a black man having sex with white women and men who were attracted to and having sex with men was illegal.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    L. Laore, May 26th, 2011 @ 3:03am

    What mr. Schneier said on the subject:

    See here: http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886

    Still relevant. Eternally relevant, actually!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 3:08am

    Doing nothing wrong.

    I've never found that argument to be anything more than a cheap way to push the burden of proof onto the unaccused.

    "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."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 3:43am

      Re: Doing nothing wrong.

      I completely forgot to bitch about the grandstanding hypocrisy that is government officials trying to force various internet entities to ensure the privacy of their users.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ohb1knewbie (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 5:17pm

      Re: It will always be so...

      Very well said. As you stated it has and always will be thus... note the life spans below the quotes.

      "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.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Fzzr (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 3:46am

    Disturbingly...

    He talks about things like "naked images" and "credit card bills" in the general category of things that people almost always want privacy for, that only the extreme/strawman form of "nothing to hide" would want to access, and contrasts them with things the government is likely to collect. Except... the government takes naked images in airports and is trying to persuade all foreign passengers to the US to allow the US to save their credit card information for 15 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 4:22am

    Things to hide

    I have plenty of things to hide, my father has a criminal record for comitting extremely unpleasant crimes. It's none of anyones business and i don't want to get judged by "the sins of the father", I've never done anything wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Daniel Morritt (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 4:25am

    Nothing to hide?

    Personally I'd make a dash from the shower to the phone if the curtains are closed, but I'm not the sort to wander about naked for no reason. If I don't want you seeing me naked for no reason, why should I hand over other personal/revealing information for no reason?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bengie, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:04am

    Camera Crew

    The people who argue this way should be forced to have a camera crew follow them EVERYWHERE for the rest of their life and their own channel showing a live stream.

    If you got nothing to hide, then you won't mind never having any privacy again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    natasha, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:16am

    when someone puts this argument in front of me I normally suggest to install a camera in his shower and stream it on the internet.
    "Well if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't object"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    FormerAC (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:26am

    If you have nothing to hide ...

    If you have nothing to hide ...

    why do you have curtains/blinds on your windows?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Colin (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 6:37am

    In Ontario we are currently having a bit of a discussion about a police request to collect DNA from a smallish group of people in a town in order to determine if one of them might be the culprit in a murder that happened last September. "If you've got nothing to hide" is a huge part of the argument made by the piggies, with the implied threat that should you refuse, you will be put under greater scrutiny. So far I've seen nothing in the media about what will happen to the DNA results and any remaining biological material collected once the investigation is over.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Christopher (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      Usually, it goes into some BIG government database somewhere.... which is the reason why I refused when they were investigating a little girl I knew getting raped 6 years ago to give a sample unless they signed an agreement saying that after I was cleared, the material in question would be destroyed.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 6:51am

    If you're so into privacy rights, why is that you won't allow this post I am writing right now via a proxy site to be posted without being reviewed first?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      HothMonster, May 26th, 2011 @ 9:39am

      Re:

      The IP you are using must be flagged by his software. Lots of ad spammers use proxies, you might be using one they frequent. I have never had any problems bouncing a connection in here. Only time I got the "moderator must approve" post message was linking to an Australian news article. Apparently his nanny software doesn't trust aussies either, I don't blame it.

      Because it wants to see what you wrote before it posts has nothing to do with violating your privacy or exposing your identity.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 26th, 2011 @ 5:08pm

      Sorry - what?!?!?

      If you're so into privacy rights, why is that you won't allow this post I am writing right now via a proxy site to be posted without being reviewed first?


      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:34am

    Anyone that has curtains or shades on their windows can't very well say this with any credibility now can they?

    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".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 7:37am

    You know - on that...

    Why does the White House have fences? What about Military bases?

    If they have nothing to hide then....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Daemon_ZOGG, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:06am

    "Why privacy matters, even if you've got nothing to hide"

    1."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." 2. "This issue isn't about what information people want to hide but about the power and the structure of government. It IS a structural problem, involving the way people are treated by government institutions and creating a power imbalance between people and the government." .. 'nuf said! ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:37am

    Can we bring Mark Zuckerberg into the discussion?

    This isn't news, but if we are going to talk about privacy, I think Facebook should be included in the mix.

    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."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    tavawood, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:50am

    More importantly, it is about mental health!

    Human beings have a basic need for privacy! This need is normal and healthy and under no circumstances should be questioned or criminalized.

    Bruce Schneier is absolutely on point with this.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bshock, May 26th, 2011 @ 8:55am

    if you have nothing to hide...

    If you have nothing to hide, show me your credit card numbers and the corresponding expiration dates.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Modplan (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 10:47am

    Solove appears to have misconstrued or misrepresented certain comments, in particular from someone that had criticised a certain previous paper he'd written (and were aimed solely at the paper, not as arguments against privacy in general), which were responded to here:

    http://madisonian.net/2011/05/26/of-debunking-and-willful-distortions/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, May 26th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    Not having something to hide (because I'm not doing anything wrong) is precisely the reason I shouldn't be searched - I'm not doing anything wrong.

    If you've got evidence I'm doing something wrong, search me.

    It goes against the basic presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    vbevan (profile), May 26th, 2011 @ 8:22pm

    A quote I liked

    I read Little Brother by Cory Doctorow recently. What scared me was that the laws for what happened in that book already exist, they just haven't been used quite that freely yet.

    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:
    There's something really liberating about having some corner of your life that's yours, that no one gets to see except you. It's a little like nudity or taking a dump. Everyone gets naked every once in a while. Everyone has to squat on the toilet. There's nothing shameful, deviant or weird about either of them. But what if I decreed that from now on, every time you went to evacuate some solid waste, you'd have to do it in a glass room perched in the middle of Times Square, and you'd be buck naked?

    Even if you've got nothing wrong or weird with your body -- and how many of us can say that? -- you'd have to be pretty strange to like that idea. Most of us would run screaming. Most of us would hold it in until we exploded.

    It's not about doing something shameful. It's about doing something private. It's about your life belonging to you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anthony Arcese, May 28th, 2011 @ 5:51pm

    I agree so much, privacy is very important to me. No matter what I'm doing, on the computer, my phone, my iPod, I don't want to share it with people. I have nothing to hide, but I don't want people watching over every goddam thing I do

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    doctor, Apr 5th, 2012 @ 10:44am

    The interesting point of wig/cancer book should be extended out further. What if there was also an acting dvd that was purchased. This could mean learning to play a role about a person with cancer, or, could be buying gifts for someone with cancer and the dvd is not a part of the mix.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This