16 ms·

In this much-discussed subject, I'm surprised that two huge points never arise: 1. The "if you have nothing to hide..." line is predicated on the viewer having

In this much-discussed subject, I'm surprised that two huge points never arise: 1. The "if you have nothing to hide..." line is predicated on the viewer having final say about whether something is right/wrong, thus subordinating the subject to the viewer. This is repulsive to the notion of liberty as protected by the American "4th Amendment" right of freedom from governmental inspection without an adjudicated warrant. To wit: it's not that I have something to hide, it's that someone else is going to be obnoxious if they see it. On a related but semantically distinct note... 2. Those pushing "if you have nothing to hide..." have suspect & ulterior motives. Their existence (income, job, power, prestige) depend on finding something "wrong". They are, by job description, hostile to me. If they derived nothing from inspecting others, they would not care whether anything was hidden or not. Remember: they seek the power to punish, not just what they find wrong, but what they cannot inspect. Your exposure nets you little, but gains them so much they want to reprimand you for any concealment.

Goladus 14y ago
Trivial example: a traditional suit-and-tie, senior manager walks by a junior programmer's cube and sees youtube on the monitor and immediately assumes junior is slacking off, abusing company resources. He subsequently spreads negative commentary about junior to his peers. The problem is both senior's prejudices, AND the fact that he's missing context. Junior might be watching an instructional video. It might be a break after 10 hours straight work. He might be creating videos for the company and uploading them. In other words, just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean someone who looks is going to see the whole true picture.
- billswift 14y ago
  And that only considers accidentally taking them out of context. As the quote from Richelieu goes, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    THAT is the line that should lead off any discussion of this topic. Anyone who's sat on either side of the table as a lawyer questions a witness will know how a selective editing of the truth can shade decisions. Reality TV shows and 60 Minutes have along, long history (and they're hardly the only ones) of shooting a great deal of footage, then splicing and editing it together in a way as to tell the story they want to tell. This is part of a larger topic I'm starting to formulate about power. The key in power isn't to have more total resources than the other side, but to identify the key points from which you can control the outcome. William Gibson noted that the future isn't evenly distributed. Neither are are power and control points.
    - mgkimsal 14y ago
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAe3FpLGvBY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAe3FpLGvBY
    - thesteamboat 14y ago
      I'd be interested in a reality show where the episodes were all drawn from the same footage, but each one has a different `slant'.
antninja 14y ago
Plus, if politicians have nothing to hide, why do they fight Wikileaks? Why don't they publish all administrative documents, accountancy books, meeting reports, etc? Those who push surveillance policies refuse to eat their own dog food. They're hypocrites.
scribu 14y ago
The second point did arise in the article (sort of): "They [privacy problems] affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives."
jonnathanson 14y ago
I'm actually surprised that the 4th Amendment isn't referenced more frequently in refutation to the asinine "nothing to hide" position. "Nothing to hide" is thematically similar to the groan-inducing "Do you want the terrorists to win?" arguments against civil liberties, in favor of increased security measures, proferred and popularly supported in the mid-2000s. (Sadly, many of the legacies and artifacts of that position still persist). The answer to any of these half-baked arguments should always begin with something along the lines of "Because we're better than that." Because we have a constitution that assumes we're good people, and that protects our civil liberties from invasion. Because these things are so fundamental to our nation's purpose that giving them up is much worse than being attacked. Giving them up threatens the very purpose of the country's founding. Even to entertain these arguments, i.e., by trying to cite examples of areas of privacy or liberty that are negotiable, areas that aren't, and so forth, is to stoop low. It is to lose before the argument has actually begun. It is to accept the faulty premise that privacy is about hiding something -- that it is an active attempt to conceal information from the world. No, privacy isn't the action being taken. Invasion of privacy is the action. Privacy is simply a state of being, and one to which we have an inalienable right. Privacy isn't something we opt into; it is something we don't even really consider until we are made, or compelled, or asked to opt out. "Nothing to hide" begs the question. It assumes, as a foregone premise, that privacy is an opt-in decision that we consciously undertake in defense of something (and that something is implied to be onerous or illegal). This is just fallacious logic, plain and simple. It's unfortunate that a right to privacy wasn't inumerated directly in the constitution, but was instead defined indirectly. This is one of those areas where the founders really couldn't have known how far technology would go, and how important something like privacy -- which may have been taken for granted back then -- would become 200+ years later.
- DanielRibeiro 14y ago
  The "nothing to fear/nothing to hide" also goes against the Presumption of innocence[1], present in many countries' civil law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
- andrewflnr 14y ago
blubler 14y ago
There can be no limit on what the [i]viewer[/] decrees to be wrong. I believe the intent of privacy protection (e.g., by the 4th Amendment) is to limit the enforceability of such decrees to situations where 'crimes' are publicly discernible. This assumes there will be bad laws such as those against witchcraft, sodomy, bitter almonds, or harboring jews. Those who ask if you have "something to hide" assume all laws are good, thus their enforcement should be absolutely boundless. The 4th Amendment was not intended to protect against mere embarrassment.
tedunangst 14y ago
To point 1, that's how all laws work. The person breaking the law rarely gets to decide the legality of their action. Even with a warrant, the suspect isn't the one determining right and wrong. To point 2, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I'm somewhere near the nothing to hide camp, but it's just a matter of picking battles and honestly not expecting everything I do to be private. I do not benefit in any way from wiretapping. I draw the line as anything some guy with a fake mustache following me around could observe is fair game. I expect my "letters" to be private, my goings about in public spaces are not. The article does a good job of bringing up processing power and collation of info, which is a concern. Overall though, I'm more worried about actions taken based on intel than on intel gathering itself. You are always going to be broadcasting some "signal", so let's focus on the active use of such data, rather than the passive gathering.
- smackay 14y ago
  I would contest that even in a public space you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy to accept anything less is to concede defeat the in entire argument. For example if I trip over my shoelaces while walking along a street then my feelings of embarrassment are confined to the passers-by that witnessed the event. If someone happens to video the event and posts it on YouTube to everyones amusement then I would say that was a gross violation of my privacy.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    hmmm, so nobody should be allowed to record video in public? I mean, what if I'm recording my friend's party in the park and you trip in the background. Am I allowed to upload the video? Do I have to edit you out first? What if I upload the video figuring you're anonymous in it, but then a friend of a friend recognizes you and edits out just the highlights? This argument can be carried to extremes; I just prefer to draw the line at public spaces are public, which even if it's not the best demarcation, is at least fairly black and white. Regardless of that, I was talking about monitoring, not broadcasting. If the police cameras record what happens on every street corner and the video is archived for potential review, I think that's quite different than live streaming to the internet. Almost all of these arguments hinge on the police watching something, and then doing something unpleasant. Maybe the doing is inevitable, but I don't think that's a foregone conclusion, so therefore I also don't think such what if scenarios are slam dunk indictments of monitoring itself.
roc 14y ago
The bigger problem with "nothing to hide" is that it implies that what currently qualifies as right or wrong will hold in the future. And while people in the US like to take for granted that democracy inevitably marches towards freedom, that simply isn't always so. There's no guarantee that what was once illegal or suitable grounds for harassment by the community and authorities won't become so again. "Harmless" records of yourself enjoying alcohol, common recreational drugs, listening to certain brands of music, interacting with currently-legitimate political parties or activist groups -- all could one day be held against you and be found as grounds to have authorities and/or the wider community harass, arrest or otherwise sanction you.
- ttt_ 14y ago
  That argumet is seldom present in these discussions and it's the one I value the most. A coup is never off the table.
Alex3917 14y ago
"In this much-discussed subject, I'm surprised that two huge points never arise" Actually those points come up in pretty much every book about privacy. Your first point is heavily discussed in Jeffrey Rosen's book The Unwanted Gaze, and your second point is sort of the point of Bruce Schneier's book Beyond Fear. See also any of Daniel Solove's books.
AJ007 14y ago
Here is someone who has nothing to hide: a naked man, without a family, with no money, and no possessions. With but a few extreme outliers, everyone in a civilized society has something to hide.
- jaredsohn 14y ago
  Even that person could have a backstory that causes people to give him good will where something hidden could affect him from getting a place to sleep, smiles/encouragement from strangers, etc (ie could be a war vet who unknowingly did something that should have caused him to be dishonorably discharged.)
anigbrowl 14y ago
Point 1 is brought up all the time, and it's not the viewer who has the final say, it's a (theoretically objective) court. As a practical matter, getting to court and fighting a case is often so expensive that the viewer's determination may be effectively final. However, your comment assumes the worst and then works backward in search of a logical antecedent.
teyc 14y ago
1. Privacy and secrets are necessary because our society demands it. My identity is crucial for me to be able to borrow money, obtain a bank account, sign papers. I am therefore entitled to privacy to my own date of birth, mother's maiden name and a host of other so called "secrets". 2. Privacy also reduces the chance I will be discriminated against. If you've lived in a country where the law decides whether you are allowed to purchase land based on your religious beliefs, then you'd appreciate that the less people know about you, the less they can prejudge you. 3. Private conversations allow ideas to be discussed and discarded if they turn out to be wrong or worse still turn out to have ethical issues attached. If every thought are treated as a matter of public discourse that can be held against you in the future, then people will be keeping their mouth shut. 4. One only have to look at how "suspected symphatizers" were killed when South Vietnam fell, to understand that privacy allows people to keep their heads low, and should the environment turn nasty, to stay out of trouble.

Goladus 14y ago

Trivial example: a traditional suit-and-tie, senior manager walks by a junior programmer's cube and sees youtube on the monitor and immediately assumes junior is slacking off, abusing company resources. He subsequently spreads negative commentary about junior to his peers. The problem is both senior's prejudices, AND the fact that he's missing context. Junior might be watching an instructional video. It might be a break after 10 hours straight work. He might be creating videos for the company and uploading them. In other words, just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean someone who looks is going to see the whole true picture.

billswift 14y ago
And that only considers accidentally taking them out of context. As the quote from Richelieu goes, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  THAT is the line that should lead off any discussion of this topic. Anyone who's sat on either side of the table as a lawyer questions a witness will know how a selective editing of the truth can shade decisions. Reality TV shows and 60 Minutes have along, long history (and they're hardly the only ones) of shooting a great deal of footage, then splicing and editing it together in a way as to tell the story they want to tell. This is part of a larger topic I'm starting to formulate about power. The key in power isn't to have more total resources than the other side, but to identify the key points from which you can control the outcome. William Gibson noted that the future isn't evenly distributed. Neither are are power and control points.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAe3FpLGvBY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAe3FpLGvBY
  - thesteamboat 14y ago
    I'd be interested in a reality show where the episodes were all drawn from the same footage, but each one has a different `slant'.

antninja 14y ago

Plus, if politicians have nothing to hide, why do they fight Wikileaks? Why don't they publish all administrative documents, accountancy books, meeting reports, etc? Those who push surveillance policies refuse to eat their own dog food. They're hypocrites.

scribu 14y ago

The second point did arise in the article (sort of): "They [privacy problems] affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives."

jonnathanson 14y ago

I'm actually surprised that the 4th Amendment isn't referenced more frequently in refutation to the asinine "nothing to hide" position. "Nothing to hide" is thematically similar to the groan-inducing "Do you want the terrorists to win?" arguments against civil liberties, in favor of increased security measures, proferred and popularly supported in the mid-2000s. (Sadly, many of the legacies and artifacts of that position still persist). The answer to any of these half-baked arguments should always begin with something along the lines of "Because we're better than that." Because we have a constitution that assumes we're good people, and that protects our civil liberties from invasion. Because these things are so fundamental to our nation's purpose that giving them up is much worse than being attacked. Giving them up threatens the very purpose of the country's founding. Even to entertain these arguments, i.e., by trying to cite examples of areas of privacy or liberty that are negotiable, areas that aren't, and so forth, is to stoop low. It is to lose before the argument has actually begun. It is to accept the faulty premise that privacy is about hiding something -- that it is an active attempt to conceal information from the world. No, privacy isn't the action being taken. Invasion of privacy is the action. Privacy is simply a state of being, and one to which we have an inalienable right. Privacy isn't something we opt into; it is something we don't even really consider until we are made, or compelled, or asked to opt out. "Nothing to hide" begs the question. It assumes, as a foregone premise, that privacy is an opt-in decision that we consciously undertake in defense of something (and that something is implied to be onerous or illegal). This is just fallacious logic, plain and simple. It's unfortunate that a right to privacy wasn't inumerated directly in the constitution, but was instead defined indirectly. This is one of those areas where the founders really couldn't have known how far technology would go, and how important something like privacy -- which may have been taken for granted back then -- would become 200+ years later.

DanielRibeiro 14y ago
The "nothing to fear/nothing to hide" also goes against the Presumption of innocence[1], present in many countries' civil law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
andrewflnr 14y ago

blubler 14y ago

There can be no limit on what the [i]viewer[/] decrees to be wrong. I believe the intent of privacy protection (e.g., by the 4th Amendment) is to limit the enforceability of such decrees to situations where 'crimes' are publicly discernible. This assumes there will be bad laws such as those against witchcraft, sodomy, bitter almonds, or harboring jews. Those who ask if you have "something to hide" assume all laws are good, thus their enforcement should be absolutely boundless. The 4th Amendment was not intended to protect against mere embarrassment.

tedunangst 14y ago

To point 1, that's how all laws work. The person breaking the law rarely gets to decide the legality of their action. Even with a warrant, the suspect isn't the one determining right and wrong. To point 2, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I'm somewhere near the nothing to hide camp, but it's just a matter of picking battles and honestly not expecting everything I do to be private. I do not benefit in any way from wiretapping. I draw the line as anything some guy with a fake mustache following me around could observe is fair game. I expect my "letters" to be private, my goings about in public spaces are not. The article does a good job of bringing up processing power and collation of info, which is a concern. Overall though, I'm more worried about actions taken based on intel than on intel gathering itself. You are always going to be broadcasting some "signal", so let's focus on the active use of such data, rather than the passive gathering.

smackay 14y ago
I would contest that even in a public space you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy to accept anything less is to concede defeat the in entire argument. For example if I trip over my shoelaces while walking along a street then my feelings of embarrassment are confined to the passers-by that witnessed the event. If someone happens to video the event and posts it on YouTube to everyones amusement then I would say that was a gross violation of my privacy.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  hmmm, so nobody should be allowed to record video in public? I mean, what if I'm recording my friend's party in the park and you trip in the background. Am I allowed to upload the video? Do I have to edit you out first? What if I upload the video figuring you're anonymous in it, but then a friend of a friend recognizes you and edits out just the highlights? This argument can be carried to extremes; I just prefer to draw the line at public spaces are public, which even if it's not the best demarcation, is at least fairly black and white. Regardless of that, I was talking about monitoring, not broadcasting. If the police cameras record what happens on every street corner and the video is archived for potential review, I think that's quite different than live streaming to the internet. Almost all of these arguments hinge on the police watching something, and then doing something unpleasant. Maybe the doing is inevitable, but I don't think that's a foregone conclusion, so therefore I also don't think such what if scenarios are slam dunk indictments of monitoring itself.

roc 14y ago

The bigger problem with "nothing to hide" is that it implies that what currently qualifies as right or wrong will hold in the future. And while people in the US like to take for granted that democracy inevitably marches towards freedom, that simply isn't always so. There's no guarantee that what was once illegal or suitable grounds for harassment by the community and authorities won't become so again. "Harmless" records of yourself enjoying alcohol, common recreational drugs, listening to certain brands of music, interacting with currently-legitimate political parties or activist groups -- all could one day be held against you and be found as grounds to have authorities and/or the wider community harass, arrest or otherwise sanction you.

ttt_ 14y ago
That argumet is seldom present in these discussions and it's the one I value the most. A coup is never off the table.

Alex3917 14y ago

"In this much-discussed subject, I'm surprised that two huge points never arise" Actually those points come up in pretty much every book about privacy. Your first point is heavily discussed in Jeffrey Rosen's book The Unwanted Gaze, and your second point is sort of the point of Bruce Schneier's book Beyond Fear. See also any of Daniel Solove's books.

AJ007 14y ago

Here is someone who has nothing to hide: a naked man, without a family, with no money, and no possessions. With but a few extreme outliers, everyone in a civilized society has something to hide.

jaredsohn 14y ago
Even that person could have a backstory that causes people to give him good will where something hidden could affect him from getting a place to sleep, smiles/encouragement from strangers, etc (ie could be a war vet who unknowingly did something that should have caused him to be dishonorably discharged.)

anigbrowl 14y ago

Point 1 is brought up all the time, and it's not the viewer who has the final say, it's a (theoretically objective) court. As a practical matter, getting to court and fighting a case is often so expensive that the viewer's determination may be effectively final. However, your comment assumes the worst and then works backward in search of a logical antecedent.

teyc 14y ago

1. Privacy and secrets are necessary because our society demands it. My identity is crucial for me to be able to borrow money, obtain a bank account, sign papers. I am therefore entitled to privacy to my own date of birth, mother's maiden name and a host of other so called "secrets". 2. Privacy also reduces the chance I will be discriminated against. If you've lived in a country where the law decides whether you are allowed to purchase land based on your religious beliefs, then you'd appreciate that the less people know about you, the less they can prejudge you. 3. Private conversations allow ideas to be discussed and discarded if they turn out to be wrong or worse still turn out to have ethical issues attached. If every thought are treated as a matter of public discourse that can be held against you in the future, then people will be keeping their mouth shut. 4. One only have to look at how "suspected symphatizers" were killed when South Vietnam fell, to understand that privacy allows people to keep their heads low, and should the environment turn nasty, to stay out of trouble.