If You've Got Nothing To Hide, You've Actually Got Plenty To Hide

from the some-analysis dept

The line "if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" is used all too often in defending surveillance overreach. It's been debunked countless times in the past, but with the line being trotted out frequently in response to the NSA revelations, it's time for yet another debunking, and there are two good ones that were recently published. First up, we've got Moxie Marlinspike at Wired, who points out that, you're wrong if you think you've got nothing to hide, because our criminal laws are so crazy, that anyone sifting through your data would likely be able to pin quite a few crimes on you if they just wanted to.

For instance, did you know that it is a federal crime to be in possession of a lobster under a certain size? It doesn't matter if you bought it at a grocery store, if someone else gave it to you, if it's dead or alive, if you found it after it died of natural causes, or even if you killed it while acting in self defense. You can go to jail because of a lobster.

If the federal government had access to every email you've ever written and every phone call you've ever made, it's almost certain that they could find something you've done which violates a provision in the 27,000 pages of federal statues or 10,000 administrative regulations. You probably do have something to hide, you just don't know it yet.

Furthermore, he points out, that one of the big reasons why laws are changed is because people realize that the laws don't make sense for the current times -- but that's much more difficult if law enforcement is sniffing through all your data and penalizing you any time they've found you've done something wrong.
Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100% effective, such that any potential law offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed. If perfect law enforcement had been a reality in Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington since their founding in the 1850s, it seems quite unlikely that these recent changes would have ever come to pass. How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same sex marriage should be permitted, if nobody had ever seen or participated in a same sex relationship?

The cornerstone of liberal democracy is the notion that free speech allows us to create a marketplace of ideas, from which we can use the political process to collectively choose the society we want. Most critiques of this system tend to focus on the ways in which this marketplace of ideas isn’t totally free, such as the ways in which some actors have substantially more influence over what information is distributed than others.
Meanwhile, over at Mashable, Julian Sanchez gives a much more direct explanation for why everyone has something to hide:
Some of the potentially sensitive facts those records expose becomes obvious after giving it some thought: Who has called a substance abuse counselor, a suicide hotline, a divorce lawyer or an abortion provider? What websites do you read daily? What porn turns you on? What religious and political groups are you a member of?

Some are less obvious. Because your cellphone's "routing information" typically includes information about the nearest cell tower, those records are also a kind of virtual map showing where you spend your time — and, when aggregated with others, who you like to spend it with.
Furthermore, he points out the elitist obnoxiousness of the claim that you shouldn't worry about overly broad surveillance, just because you might not be a target:
However, that seems like an awfully narrow way to think about the importance of privacy. Folks don't usually say (aloud, anyway), "I'm white, why should I care about racism?" or, "My political and religious views are too mainstream to ever be restricted, so why should I care about the First Amendment?"

We don't say such things not only because we care about other people's rights as well as our own happiness, but also because we understand that we benefit indirectly from living in a certain kind of society. You may not be interested in protesting, criticizing the government or debating fringe political views — but as a citizen of a democracy, subject to the laws the democratic process produces, you're better off in a system where those things are allowed to happen.
So, yes, even if you don't think you have something to hide, you do, and you should be concerned about the basic civil liberties and civil rights of those around you.

Filed Under: data mininig, nothing to hide, nsa, nsa surveillance

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Rapnel (profile), 14 Jun 2013 @ 6:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crying because of effeciencies

    Because telecom buys your banking buys your service provider buys your ... forfeiture of rights?

    I see what your arguments are but I don't think you grasp how foreign signals intelligence has made the leap to domestic signals, records, history and location, past, present and predicted. Conflating this country's constitution with, relatively speaking, business intelligence is confounding at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

    Stop pretending what Google has is what the NSA has. It's not the same thing so stop comparing it as if it were.

    We have restricted travel (if not restricted then heavily intimidating - I'm just not sure what the difference is).

    We have cops heavily armed enforcing non-violent crimes.

    We have "looks of contempt" as authorization to beat down children holding puppies.

    We have "stop resisting" as an excuse to deliver death.

    We have criminal enforcement of capture the video capture.

    We have PMIC (prison and military industrial complexes) completely off the ranch.

    We have aggressive attempts to "free up" six months or more worth of data collections for the same data mining "privileges" that the NSA now has to be used to investigate infringement and other "it's for the xxxx" crimes.

    We, apparently, now have complete city lock down authorization for a guy with a gun on the run.

    We have a two(one)-party system that, seemingly, can weather any challenge.

    We have a secret court and secret law interpretations.

    We have bankers with an all but completely free pass to risk all of our well being. (over and over again)

    We have the people's representatives, some of them far, far to comfortable where they are, completely and irrefutably selling out the rights, liberties, security and stability of hundreds of millions of people in our, what was once a model, society.

    We have no hemp production (boggles the mind).

    And now we have you, anti-privacy apologists.

    Terrorism both starts and ends at home. Only this time, it looks like the ends is justifying the means and giving an entirely new meaning to "freedom fighters".

    If you have nothing to hide you're wasting your lives.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.