> bullshit. the real reason "nothing to hide" is invalid is that it refuses to recognize that we don't cede all moral responsibility to the government. You are

> bullshit. the real reason "nothing to hide" is invalid is that it refuses to recognize that we don't cede all moral responsibility to the government. You are assuming that the only entity that has an interest in having access to 'private' data is 'the government'. Without disabusing yourself of this notion you can't really understand the article properly. In reality we all have an interest in having access to as much information about others we interact with - whether it be a business deal, a personal relationship or just being in the same physical place. As technology allows more of your personal data to be recorded and verified it would not be surprising that those who were prepared to divulge more private information would gain an advantage over those who did not. We are more likely to end up in a world where your girlfriend demands access to your lifestream than the 1984 scenario you are thinking of. A recent example of the opposite of your thinking is police in Boston arresting people for people recording them arresting people because it 'violated their right to privacy'. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...