Very interesting read on the argument of "nothing to hide" proponents.

Schneier on Security

A blog covering security and security technology.


July 13, 2007
Privacy and the "Nothing to Hide" Argument

Good essay:

In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the "nothing to hide" argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the "nothing to hide" argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The "nothing to hide" argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the "nothing to hide" argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...y_and_the.html


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=998565 PDF from Social Science Research Network

The "nothing to hide" argument and its variants are quite prevalent in popular discourse about privacy. Data security expert Bruce Schneier calls it the "most common retort against privacy advocates" Legal scholar Geoffrey Stone refers to it as "all-too-common refrain".
The "nothing to hide" argument is one of the primary arguments made when balancing privacy against security. In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal to trivial, thus making the balance against security concerns a foreordained victory for security.
Sometimes the "nothing to hide" argument is posed as a question: "If you have nothing to hide, then what do you have to fear?" Others ask: "If you arn't doing anything wrong, then what do you have to hide?"
People need to understand the differences and nuances in the questions that are asked of them, because the Law agencies certainly know how to ask them.