An often used argument against privacy is “nothing to hide” – this refers to the concept that if you have nothing to hide then you should not be concerned about your privacy. In part it is built on a reversed no smoke without fire idea. The problem with this is not that people have something to hide but rather the problem is that innocence is not necessarily an defense against bad consequences.
Often the nothing to hide idea is use against those who argue for more privacy regulation i.e. stronger protection against invasion of privacy. The numerous examples of innocent people getting hurt should provide an abundance of material to ensure that such an argument is not used but again this is wrong. We tend to forget past injustice and often believe that our legal system will only act against the guilty.
Daniel Solove has written an interesting article on the other use of the nothing to hide argument. This is from the abstract:
In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: I’ve got nothing to hide. According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.
Read ‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.