4 ms·

I'm not really sure this is a good argument at all. In your scenario, if the two people have nothing to hide why would they care? You're better of appealing to

I'm not really sure this is a good argument at all. In your scenario, if the two people have nothing to hide why would they care? You're better of appealing to things that they normally might want to hide, like an embarrassing act or things that are said that are questionable out of context, etc. A person who truly has nothing to hide, by definition, would not care about privacy. The entire point of privacy is that there are things that we do not want to share, for whatever reason.

apeace 6y ago
People tend to feel attacked when you argue that they do, in fact, have something to hide. Even when you come from the perspective that everyone has something to hide, mostly small things. I've had the best success with the argument I posted. It helps people understand that privacy isn't "hiding", it's normal. What's not normal is guaranteeing your government can see everything you do all the time, and we should think about whether that's what we want.
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  Actually it reveals a twist in those in favour of surveillance . What they do they falsely accuse you of 'hiding' while you simply naturally expected not to be invaded. They invade you and then they they kind of ask you what is the problem? you have something to hide? And some people say : Oh, we have nothing to hide. But the problem is the fact of invasion, not wether they have to hide something or not. It's like someone invades your territory or takes your stuff and you say, oh, i don't really need those. It's not the problem wether you need those or not. The problem is that you can't decide about it anymore, you right to decide was taken away. In case of property you loose right to private property. In case of free speech you loose your right for free speech. In case of privacy you loose your right choose not to be watched. You loose ability to decide to be private if you wish. That is the problem.

apeace 6y ago

People tend to feel attacked when you argue that they do, in fact, have something to hide. Even when you come from the perspective that everyone has something to hide, mostly small things. I've had the best success with the argument I posted. It helps people understand that privacy isn't "hiding", it's normal. What's not normal is guaranteeing your government can see everything you do all the time, and we should think about whether that's what we want.

lovelyviking 6y ago
Actually it reveals a twist in those in favour of surveillance . What they do they falsely accuse you of 'hiding' while you simply naturally expected not to be invaded. They invade you and then they they kind of ask you what is the problem? you have something to hide? And some people say : Oh, we have nothing to hide. But the problem is the fact of invasion, not wether they have to hide something or not. It's like someone invades your territory or takes your stuff and you say, oh, i don't really need those. It's not the problem wether you need those or not. The problem is that you can't decide about it anymore, you right to decide was taken away. In case of property you loose right to private property. In case of free speech you loose your right for free speech. In case of privacy you loose your right choose not to be watched. You loose ability to decide to be private if you wish. That is the problem.