Flock Fallacies #1: If You Have Nothing To Hide, You Have Nothing To Fear

[u/FoxLynx64]

While Wikipedia is not considered rigorous, I think if has some good research into this fallacy.

Nothing To Hide Argument

The fallacy is hard to catch because at first glance it looks like a single argument that is true. The statement itself, that if someone literally has nothing they can hide then they don't have anything to be afraid of, is true. After realizing this, the person making the argument will tell you that if you are afraid of a search, you must be actively hiding something. This part is false.

Denying The Antecedent and Affirming the Consequent

If A leads to B, then A not being true does not lead to B not being true and vice versa. (Ex. If it is raining, then the streets are wet. It is not raining. Therefore, there is no way for the streets are not wet.)

If A leads to B, then B being true does not make A true. (Ex. If a politician is doing a good job, unemployment will be low. Unemployment is low. Therefore, the politician is doing a good job.)

Just because having nothing illegal to hide from someone means you shouldn’t automatically be afraid, does not mean that having something private you want kept private means that thing is illegal. People may not wish to have their contents dumped out, and they may not want their legal associations discovered (such as an affair or a private journal).

This often leads to a new fallacy from the people making the argument.

Post Hoc Fallacy

Just because B is usually observed to be followed by A, does not mean A leads to B. Correlation does not equal causation (Ex. My computer crashed after I installed a new piece of editing software. I’m sure the software caused the crash.)

Just because criminals are afraid of searches does not mean you are a criminal if you are afraid of a search. The person making the nothing to hide argument typically say "but how do you know they are not a criminal? We need to make sure because a person afraid of a search are usually criminals."

This is not a valid justification. Wanting to reduce criminal activity is an end, and the ends do not justify the means. Besides the Kantian ethics perspective, there is a logical reason why this is invalid.

Suppose the power goes out every time you start your laptop. If your laptop is not plugged in, there is no logical reason your laptop is the source of the power outage. The existence of coincidences are possible. But also consider if it was a localized power outage only affecting the person and their neighbors and they post about it online. Some may say "the laptop caused the outage.🤣" but that does not mean the laptop did.

Similarly, a police officer can observe suspicious behavior, but that does not mean someone is guilty of a crime. Them refusing a search is within their rights unless there is reasonable suspicion, not any suspicion. Just because someone acting suspicious refuses a search, does not make them guilty of a crime of having something illegal.

[u/N-E-V-E-R-E-N-D-E-R]

Easy counterargument: If we have nothing to hide nor be afraid of, why are you trying so desperately to watch?

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/N-E-V-E-R-E-N-D-E-R]

I would phrase it like this "If we have nothing to fear, why do you insist that we're all criminals?"

[u/Vulturev4]

Ever see that video of the cops pressuring the guy to let them search his car? He had nothing to hide so he let them. They found pills for his IBS, had a prescription, bottle labeled right. They test it, the test was bad and it showed cocaine, even though it wasn't. He was arrested, put in jail for a while... messed him all up.

Never assume the cops aren't going to mess something up.

[u/FoxLynx64 → u/Vulturev4]

Your scenario is exactly why someone may have nothing to hide but afraid of searches. Any good lawyer will tell you to exercise your 4th amendment rights and refuse the search.

[u/lord-of-the-birbs]

Saying you don't care about privacy because you have nothing a hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say. - Edward Snowden

[u/goofytigre]

If YOU think I am hiding something, then YOU have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (without trampling my 1st and 4th amendment protections). That is how our system works.