Comment by Vinnl
6 years ago
I strongly dislike that reply, because
1. it fails to address their actual argument, which is that they have nothing to hide from companies or the government, especially law enforcement.
2. it fails to convey the actual threat of loss of privacy: the threat to democracy and freedom of speech when journalists can't protect their sources, lawyers can't be trusted by their clients, etc.
I therefore prefer to emphasise that latter point, that even though they might have nothing to hide, people they should care about do.
Although lately it's become easier to convince people that even they have something to hide: as political actors (e.g. Cambridge Analytica) learn more about them from their data, they can target you (and people like you) with tailor-made lies to influence who you (and people like you) vote for.
Doesn't convince or even interest everyone, of course, but more than before.
In my personal experience the people who use the 'I have nothing to hide' argument, use it because they are unwilling to expend the cognitive effort to delve into the topic in any meaningful way.
Trying to reason with someone about some topic they didn't use reason to get to their position on in the first place is often a losing proposition.
So these days I just say "if you don't want to even think about some problem or issue, you should just come out and say 'I don't want to think about this' instead of saying something so obviously and unambiguously ignorant. That just makes you look bad". Then I move on. I can't make folks think. I can't save them from themselves and their privacy isn't the hill I'm going to die on.
>So these days I just say "if you don't want to even think about some problem or issue, you should just come out and say 'I don't want to think about this' instead of saying something so obviously and unambiguously ignorant. That just makes you look bad". Then I move on.
That seems overly dismissive and presumptuous.
Of course it's dismissive. This is because "I don't have anything to hide" is not an invitation for some long drawn out discussion about the intersection of philosophy, technology, culture, and civil rights. It's a no-thought dismissal. Pretending it's anything else is a waste of time and fundamentally dishonest.
You can't seriously discuss the threat to democracy and free society because the overwhelming majority of the people who care about privacy want to leave back doors to see that behavior used against the various boogeymen they don't like.
Everyone talks grand about protecting privacy in threads like this but when it comes down to it we vote for politicians who promise to institute invasive background checks for gun owners and use Facebook surveillance to root out white supremacists.
IMO while definitely good for society the general acceptance of homosexuality and weed use are two big blows to privacy because those were very relatable and common things that people wanted to stay hidden.
> which is that they have nothing to hide from companies or the government, especially law enforcement
Which is not true when you consider that all your life events are being used to estimate your suitability for life changing opportunities like getting a job or a mortgage or a visa.
Sure, that's related to my final paragraph as well. But I'm not saying that their argument is correct; just that "why do you lock your bathroom door" is not a sufficient rebuttal of it.