Hence, a person who favors this argument may state “I’ve got nothing to hide” and therefore does not express opposition to government surveillance. Bennett explained that most people “go through their daily lives believing that surveillance processes are not directed at them, but at the miscreants and wrongdoers” and that “the dominant orientation is that mechanisms of surveillance are directed at others” despite “evidence that the monitoring of individual behavior has become routine and everyday”. It found that, in the words of Kirsty Best, author of “Living in the control society Surveillance, users and digital screen technologies”, “fully employed, middle to middle-upper income earners articulated similar beliefs about not being targeted for surveillance” compared to other respondents who did not show concern, and that “In how to hide when a pdf was created cases, respondents expressed the view that they were not doing anything wrong, or that they had nothing to hide.
One of the clearest features of our subjects’ privacy perceptions and practices was their passivity towards the issue. According to the study, men who were self-employed initially used the “nothing to hide” argument before shifting to an argument in which they perceived surveillance to be a nuisance instead of a threat. Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say. I don’t care about this right. I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it. The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights. Solove wrote “When engaged directly, the nothing-to-hide argument can ensnare, for it forces the debate to focus on its narrow understanding of privacy.
But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the nothing-to-hide argument, in the end, has nothing to say. Here we are rejecting the view that privacy interests are the sorts of things that can be traded for security. He also stated that surveillance can disproportionately affect certain groups in society based on appearance, ethnicity, and religion. Moore maintains that there are at least three other problems with the “nothing to hide” argument. First, if individuals have privacy rights, then invoking “nothing to hide” is irrelevant. Privacy, understood as a right to control access to and uses of spaces, locations, and personal information, means that it is the right holder who determines access. To drive this point home Moore offers the following case.
Imagine upon exiting your house one day you find a person searching through your trash painstakingly putting the shredded notes and documents back together. Second, individuals may wish to hide embarrassing behavior or conduct not accepted by the dominant culture. Consider someone’s sexual or medical history. Imagine someone visiting a library to learn about alternative lifestyles not accepted by the majority. Finally, Moore argues that “nothing to hide,” if taken seriously, could be used against government agents, politicians, and CEO’s. Moore argues that the NSA agent, politician, police chief, and CEO have nothing to hide so they should embrace total transparency like the rest of us.
But they don’t and when given the technological tools to watch, the politician, police chief, or CEO are almost always convinced that watching others is a good thing. If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged”, referring to how a state government can find aspects in a person’s life in order to prosecute or blackmail that individual. Schneier also argued “Too many wrongly characterize the debate as ‘security versus privacy. The real choice is liberty versus control. People do not need to have “something to hide” in order to hide “something”.