5 ms·
The issue with the 'nothing to hide' argument is that it puts the burden of proof and determination of whether something is 'hide-worthy' on the target of the i
by raminf 11y ago
The issue with the 'nothing to hide' argument is that it puts the burden of proof and determination of whether something is 'hide-worthy' on the target of the inquiry.
If you subscribe to the 'presumed innocent' premise of the law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) then the burden of proof is on the inquisitor.
Either you believe in presumed innocence or you don't. Pick one.
- mverwijs 11y agoMy respons to the 'nothing to hide' argument is: "Why are you so scared of things that are hidden?" That puts them on the defensive. Since now they have to justify their fear for the unknown. And then we're onto the real topic: fear.
- Casseres 11y agoSomeone who pushes the "nothing to hide" argument probably wouldn't understand the implication of your response. I suggest a different approach: say "Okay, in that case what prescriptions are you taking, how much money do you have in your bank account, and how often do you have sex? After all, you have nothing to hide right?" That also puts them on the defensive side of the argument.