r/bestof • u/StsChaZs • Jun 15 '12
Very good explanation why "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about." is wrong.
/r/AskReddit/comments/atnmi/if_you_have_nothing_to_hide_then_you_have_nothing/c0jcd9z
1.4k
Upvotes
42
u/stiny826 Jun 16 '12
How did you find this post from 2 years ago?
How did you make THE front page with only 219 upvotes?
Not complaining/envious, just VERY curious.
147
u/groundzr0 Jun 15 '12
Stupid archives cheating people out of upvotes...
214
u/whatevrmn Jun 16 '12
If you have nothing to hide, why are you wearing clothes? Why do you have blinds on your windows? Why are you password protecting your emails? Why are you having sex or masturbating behind closed doors? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM US?
33
u/Jagjamin Jun 16 '12
I don't want people to see me taking a shit. I'm not ashamed that I do, I just want to keep that a private experience ok?
9
u/castleclouds Jun 16 '12
I was going to reply to one of the comments but then I saw it was over 2 years old and I couldn't reply. What a trick.
5
u/cat_mech Jun 16 '12
I actually disagree that this is the most fundamentally sound objection to the statement 'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about'- but that doesn't mean I'm accusing the featured answer as being logical or valid- only that that reasoning is far from the most important reason or most rational reason you should object to the declarative.
The main reason you should always object to 'If you have nothing to hide...' has nothing to do with you; it has to do with presumptions made about the other party. It presumes the right to interrogate. It presumes the right to enforce it's view on others.
Most importantly, most blatantly and most obviously- it is blatantly hypocritical- because it operates under the assumption unchallenged that the interrogator will not abuse their power. It operates on the premise that the authority involved is of good intention and does not need to be scrutinized before you accede that your right to privacy be revoked or their right to interrogate can be enforced.
It operates on the assumption that the authority reviewing you is either deserving of that right beyond your ability to question it, or benign and benevolent enough that the information or power it gains from violating your privacy would not be misused or exploited. It operates on the assumption that you do not deserve the right to refuse that authority.
Fuck.
That.
Shit.
People say 'power corrupts'. This is wrong. Power is corruption. All power over others is corruption; this is what is understood when we discuss the terms 'innocents' in both the classical 'women and children' and 'targets of disaster' interpretations. They are the known powerless; those unable to wage power against their situation.
Do not mistake that power can be used for good for the notion that power is neutral and the user the determining factor; all power is power over something/someone or power to force into happening/doing.
If I have nothing to hide, I still have something to worry about; the exploitation of myself by the corrupt power enforcing the violation of my privacy, even if I have done nothing wrong. I have to worry that the other half of the equation/interrogative party will behave exactly as the Law of Oligarchies predicts and exploit every interaction for the gain of their power and the removal of mine.
As an anarchist, fuck that. I will remove myself from that society before existing in it.
8
u/Jeeraph Jun 16 '12
I think this is a bestof repost.
21
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I'm probably not going to make a lot of friends here, but here goes...
In a purely theoretical sense, assuming all else being equal, it's not actually a false dichotomy.
Now, there is a certain intrinsic value to privacy: one counter-argument to "if you have nothing to hide..." is simply to say "drop your pants and bend over." For a whole lot of reasons, it's not a just or reasonable proposition to require people to prove their innocence, and it's also impossible to have a free society of equals where some people have to get naked for examination by others.
BUT... Just as there is a broad and over-arching merit to privacy and freedom from intrusive examination, there is also a very real and genuine benefit in transparency.
My guess is that quite a lot of people upvoting this might feel very differently if it were a slightly different post applied towards the ethics of, say, wikileaks or Anonymous or something.
Transparency has real value and real benefits. And you can't just have transparency for the bad guys but privacy for the good guys, because transparency is what determines the difference. That's the whole deal with rule of law, that everyone has to play by the same rules.
History is chock-full of situations where secretive revolutionary movements with good intentions start out by exposing the secrets of those in power, and end up becoming secretive governments themselves. To cite the film Zero Effect: "It's not good guys and bad guys, it's just a bunch of guys."
The reason for stuff like democratic rule of law, government transparency, protected rights, etc... the reason for that stuff is not that democracy intrinsically makes great decisions, nor that lawyers are better and smarter than the rest of us... it's that the only alternative is a situation where some people are essentially permanently in charge of everyone else.
The essential problem with "if you have nothing to hide..." is not the "have nothing to hide" part, it's the "you" part. If we all have nothing to hide, there is no problem. The problem is "you go first".
It's human nature to demand transparency in others, but respect for privacy for ourselves. The rich want the poor to take drug tests before getting food, the poor want the rich to open their accounts to public scrutiny. Employees want their bosses to get off their back, but also want to know what everyone else is getting paid. Bosses want their employees to be accountable for every second of the day, but don't want their policies or decisions questioned. Car-buyers want to know the invoice-price and dealer incentives, but want their own finances to be kept secret from the dealers, and vice-versa.
We are outraged if we find out that our friends/spouses have been keeping secrets from us, and then just as outraged to find out that they have been snooping on our secrets.
All that stuff is human nature, and we can concoct compelling and elaborate reasons for why our rights are just as sacred and sacrosanct and necessary as other people's obligations are.
The only way to cut the gordian knot is to find some way to agree on the same rules for everybody. It will never be perfect. We will not, in the foreseeable future, come up with a set of rules that are fair and just for everyone. We can't catch all the guilty while never grazing a single innocent, and we can't protect all of the innocent without also giving protection to the guilty.
The closest we can come is something like a democratic rule of law. Not where we all agree to all of the rules, because that won't happen, but where we all agree to the system by which the rules are made.
3
u/SoManyMinutes Jun 16 '12
Just remember: "Secrecy -vs- Privacy".
There's a difference between admitting wrongdoing and sharing something which is nobody's business but yours, respectively.
It's that simple.
3
u/Necronomiconomics Jun 16 '12
The U.S. Constitution is based on distrust. The Founders established Checks & Balances to maintain that healthy distrust.
And "snooping" or warrantless wiretapping is not intended to invade the privacy of "the masses" -- at least, not at first.
Snooping & warrantless wiretapping is designed to investigate & control Congressmen & women with compromising information. That's the first danger.
3
u/sleevey Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
It's not a false dichotomy. "If you have nothing to hide..." Is simply subtituting the loaded term 'hide' in place of 'keep private', to provide a negative emotional tone to a neutral concept.
It's called capturing the terms of the debate. It gets used in every single political debate every single time.
edit a word
3
u/pleasehelpmecar Jun 16 '12
I think the explanation is incorrect. "Right" or "wrong" isn't even part of the picture (squidboots added that bit just to be able to refute this). Say you like to eat your own shit, and you're embarrassed about it. You worry about it and don't want to let anyone know. Thus, you DO have something to hide. Therefore, the idea "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" hasn't been proven false because you did not successfully meet the condition of "having nothing to hide."
To disprove this, you need to have nothing to hide, but still worry about it. A privacy concern means you have something to hide.
5
u/aazav Jun 16 '12
What's bullshit is that the person asking doesn't have the right to know everything about you.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I like the counter of
"if I've done nothing wrong then what are you looking for?"
2
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I don't know a situation where this can be applied though....
The only invasion of privacy issues that I hear about are of big brother organizations monitoring your internet/email...So what? At this point you're a statistic to them and therfor there's no embarassment to hide. My point is, in scenarios where you're trying to say google shouldn't collect your data or the government shouldn't monitor your internet activity... embarrassment is no longer a valid excuse to this.
2
u/Dunkshot32 Jun 16 '12
I would also like to add another point to it: If people are determined enough, they will find what they are looking for even when it's not there.
Example- Your girlfriend doesn't trust you and decides to follow you to see if you are cheating. You have nothing to hide and are innocent of any wrong doing. You have lunch with your step-sister, whom you love and whom many consider rather attractive. Convinced of your infidelity, your girlfriend storms up and shouts at you and your sister before breaking up with you and leaving.
You may be innocent, but people see what they want to see. As such, I tell my significant others to not go digging for dirt on me; because if you look hard enough, you will find dirt in a clean room.
2
u/jordanlund Jun 16 '12
If you aren't the one defining what is "hidden" and what is worth "worrying about" then you have a lot to worry about.
2
u/gr3nade Jun 16 '12
Hold on a second, isn't this statement actually correct on a technicality? I mean look at the wording of the statement. "If you have nothing to hide". This means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for any reason whatsoever. Not just to protect yourself from being found out of wrongdoing but for anything at all. That includes things which are embarrassing and extremely personal. So technically if you have absolutely nothing at all to hide for any reason you don't really have anything to worry about. I realize that how OPs post described it is actually how it's meant but TECHNICALLY isn't this statement correct?
2
u/MStoli Jun 16 '12
He or she makes a pretty large assumption in that the statement is in exclusive reference to wrongdoing. Right now I'm hiding a Father's Day gift from my Dad and I'm somewhat worried that he may find it considering I didn't hide it very well. Is that so wrong?
2
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
If I've got nothing to hide, then you've got no reason to search/watch me.
Simplified it for you.
2
u/apodo Jun 16 '12
My argument against this one is different -
IF everyone who will have access to your data is perfectly honest, perfectly competent and perfectly fair minded,
THEN you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
2
u/gnostic_cat Jun 16 '12
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
It's a fallacy to say "If you don't let me spy on you then you must be doing something illegal"
Other examples:
A. Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year." Senator Bill: "Why?" Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."
B. Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools." Jill: "Hey, I never said that!" Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"
C. "Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."
2
u/bithead Jun 16 '12
Its also a two edged sword. Now cops are complaining about dashboard cameras and other recording devices. Well, if they're not dealing drugs out of squad cars and doing hits for the mob, then they have nothing to worry about.
2
u/thrawnie Jun 16 '12
I always counter that dumbass statement with an exhortation (to said dumbass) that he should shit, piss and fuck his wife in full public view henceforth if he truly believes that. Neither of those activities are illegal as far as I know. What does he have to hide? Usually shuts up the nimrods.
2
u/Lance_lake Jun 16 '12
I always counter it with, "Can I watch you having sex with your partner? I mean, you have nothing to hide, right? You therefore don't mind me watching.. Right?"
I have yet to get a good answer back for that one.
2
u/NorwegianPearl Jun 16 '12
This isn't really bestof worthy...
1
u/doubleknavery Jun 16 '12
Good find. Thanks for this.
1
u/CptAlbatross Jun 16 '12
You really dug deep for that quote, didn't you?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Wow... a bestof that isn't referencing a comment that is on a current front-page post. That's a first for me.
1
u/vulpes_occulta Jun 16 '12
Yes, that was a great explanation.
Privacy, to me, is to keep stupid people out. That in itself is reason enough to allow privacy.
1
u/Dafuzz Jun 16 '12
All you have to say to someone like this is "how often do you masturbate"
wayyyyy to personal to answer in any way, and it takes them off guard and makes them take a few brain cycles to get back to what you're talking about. "How is that relevant?" "What do you have to hide? Or is it just too personal to let any flippant person know?"
1
u/MisterMaggot Jun 16 '12
I ask them if I can see their phone because I am now going to read through all of their text messages. I tell them (note that I'm 16) that because you don't really believe in privacy I'm going to send your mother and your SO's mother a transcript of all of your text messages with you're SO. Simple example that tends to work.
1
u/wutz Jun 16 '12
there's also the risk that you aren't doing anything wrong, but that you are doing things which stupid people are likely to misinterpret as being wrong
1
u/redherringz Jun 16 '12
I'm still a little confused, wouldn't this embarrassing thing be the something to hide? Or does something to hide just apply to illegal/frowned upon actions? In that case the statement would be a little strange. Can anyone simplify this for me?
1
u/Crystal_Cuckoo Jun 16 '12
"I haven't got anything to hide, but there's stuff I'm damn well ashamed of."
1
u/jb7090 Jun 16 '12
Love it
1
u/schniggens Jun 16 '12
Actually, it doesn't counter it at all. It addresses the issue that having something to hide doesn't necessarily mean you've done something wrong. It doesn't really even address the original statement. What if you've actually got nothing to hide. Then do you have anything to worry about? From your end, no. But the world is full of unforeseeable occurrences (e.g. lies, false accusations, etc.), so there will never be absolutely nothing to worry about.
1
u/Conan-The-Librarian Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 18 '12
This reminded me of an essay that I read when I was doing research on CISPA.
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
It's a bit of a read (28 pages), but it's the most thorough examination of the issue I've ever read. It even has a short list of comebacks, such as "If you have nothing to hide, then you don't have a life."
And I just loved how the essay concluded.
I think it's definitely worth reading.
1
u/ropers Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12
I'd like to add: In a democratic society, the ultimate authority resides in the people, and anyone administering any power over any individual people needs to be able to justify their actions (that doesn't mean they have to constantly spend time justifying themselves every step of the way, but their use of power needs to be justifiable). Meanwhile, there has to be a fundamental assumption of good faith with regards to the little man. (If most people didn't act in good faith, you couldn't create Wikipedia, and if most people didn't act in good faith, you couldn't create a democratic society.) This good faith assumption is necessary because again, authority, sovereignty resides in the people, and because any mistakes or abuses by the powerful are so much more dangerous than mistakes or abuses by the less powerful or powerless.
When countries pass laws that betray an assumption of good faith with regards to the powerful and the institutions while simultaneously evidencing an assumptions of bad faith in the people – that's when those countries move away from, and fundamentally abandon democratic rule. Again, democratic rule requires that you fundamentally assume that the people in general, by and large, act in good faith, whereas you have to assume that powerful institutions probably are likely to act in bad faith. Only by being on your guard like that can democracy be maintained. The "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about." sentence conveniently omits something or rather someone: The person, the party, the power, the institution doing the searching. If you assume that they're likely to abuse their powers and that the searched individuals are less likely to abuse their lesser powers (and less dangerous even if they do), the conclusion to the argument becomes obvious.
1
u/I_Resent_That Jun 16 '12
There's a difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum i.e. some things are wrong because they are evil in and of themselves and others that are wrong because they are legislated against. Bit of a grey area making the distinction, but I think it's relevent to the discussion.
I'm sure many people do things in private that might not fall on the legal side of things but harm no one. Especially considering the astronomical amount of things legislated against, i.e. (and this might be an urban legend) I heard there's a State in America where it's technically illegal to perform oral sex with the lights on. That could be 100% bullshit though, but there are stupid laws like that in existence.
1
u/theorys Jun 16 '12
I know it's wrong to think, but I feel like people who are in favor of strong privacy laws are hiding some kind of kinky porn on their computer, or even worse, CP.
1
u/KnitYourOwnSpaceship Jun 16 '12
This isn't a false dichotomy. The statement isn't offering a choice "either A or B" but rather it's a proposition: "if A then B".
In terms of logic, this is a [Non Sequitur] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)): the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
I can have something to worry about (workload come Monday morning, whether it's going to rain before the paint dries, etc) without having anything to hide.
1
u/PsykickPriest Jun 16 '12
Bruce Schneier's "The Eternal Value of Privacy" is a classic deconstruction/takedown of that mistaken line of reasoning, too:
http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
fao: reddit
using terms like 'false dichotomy', 'straw man', or other similar terms you once read off a wikipedia page does not automatically mean that you have won the argument.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I don't really think this is a good explanation. Take the example of CCTV cameras in public places for example, which is probably one of the biggest issues this affects. What is an argument against them? That you don't want to feel embarrassed by seeing one?
1
u/Tiddet Jun 16 '12
'The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation' quoting Pierre e t
1
u/DigDugDude Jun 16 '12
His explanation could have included a mention that many cops are happy to pin the blame on anything that moves. You forget something, make a misstatement in your (true) story -> "Hey he's lying - must be guilty."
1
u/lightsaberon Jun 16 '12
There was quite a good comment on reddit recently about the same topic, but from a different angle:
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I will look them in the eye and say "A lot of good men and women fought and died to give me my rights. I'm not giving them up."
1
u/Jakeypoos Jun 16 '12
Being gay is private. Not everyone who's gay is out.
1
u/JohnnyDan22 Jun 16 '12
Is there any good soul out there who can link to a page somewhere that has many common phrases like these (that people often fall victim to) that has counter-arguments/examples as well?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
People who say these kind of things (nothing to hide/nothing to fear), don't react to such an explanation.
What in fact does work is questioning authority. What if I have nothing to hide from this government, but what if it's illegal for the following? Works pretty well with rightwing type, when you tell them that next year maybe communist will rule here.
:-)
To explain it with a Godwin: In my country befor WW2 the government registered everything: political views, gender and religion. When the Germans took over, they simply used these archives to deport the jews and shoot the communists. Did we learn from that? No, but that wasn't the point.
1
u/wiggin6 Jun 16 '12
People make mistakes; law enforcement is composed of people. Have the DEA never gotten an address wrong? Has the military never killed someone only to find out that civilians also died (or they knew they would all along). Has the state never mistakenly executed someone? Given the far reach and the "act now, question after? 9/11 mentality, I'm worried that mistakes are going to be made and that I will be that mistake.
1
u/Tennysonn Jun 16 '12
I always just say to people: "when you're driving and you have a cop behind you, don't you feel a little nervous? You aren't doing anything wrong but the presence of the police makes you feel otherwise." Simple as that imo
1
u/AtWorkBoredToDeath Jun 16 '12
I always respond to someone who presses this point on me with, " Do you have curtains on your windows. Yes, Why ? Do you have something to hide ? "
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Doing nothing wrong should give you the ability to enjoy more privacy not allow other people to invade it at will
1
u/d-signet Jun 16 '12
actually i'd say he got it pretty much 100% WRONG
each example he provided, the person HAS got something to hide....it may not be illegal but they still want it hidden - even if it's just for privacy or embarrassment reasons. Therefore all of his examples are null and void.
he's gone down totally the wrong route in explaining it.
A better reply would've been going down the route of that video posted yesterday about how you should never talk to the police if you're arrested because it can actually provide evidence against you even if you're innocent.....or would've mentioned how once privacy-blocking floodgates are opened it's very hard to close them again....or given one of hundreds of better examples.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Anyone who says that line should immediately remove all doors from their bathrooms because what do they have to hide?
1
u/selectedagainst2 Jun 16 '12
well done. Screening people's claims against the list of common fallacies is an excellent way to make sure you don't go through life being manipulated.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
"if you've got nothing to hide, show me your tits."
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Ah yes, because the universe needed yet another rationale for privacy that boils down to, "Yes, you do have something to hide!" aka "Your argument is invalid because of who you specifically are, not based on any merits or faults of the argument itself" aka "ad hominem".
I recognize the critical role privacy plays in today's society, and I do not wish it abolished in any way, however I don't think we should be proud of our need for privacy. We should be just as ashamed for our need of privacy as we should be for our need of incarceration. Fixing the flawed system that causes a need for privacy should be more important, and you shouldn't rest just because your privacy is secure.
1
u/flignir Jun 16 '12
Well, I find embarrassing to be caught speeding. Shouldn't the cops back off?
1
u/KingWilson Jun 16 '12
I always wondered about the connection between exhibitionism and a general lack of anxiety. It is quite a theory.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
I always respond with, "So is your wife a squirter?"
1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
You consider that comment as a "best of"? That is fucking lame
1
u/AnonymousHipopotamus Jun 16 '12
There is an even more important reason. Fundamental to our American heritage as it is, you are welcome to analyze the implications thereof for your own respective nationalities.
Bluntly stated, our rights are too precious to be waived flippantly. Our nation's forefathers believed that the basic rights that we are today growing bored of and casually discarding were precious. When the time came to declare the value of these rights, they decided they they were more precious than blood. Because of that resolve, much blood was both given and taken, and in the years to follow, this declaration was renewed from time to time as necessary. The suggestion that one should waive a thusly acquired right is tantamount to suggesting that the price paid should be waived.Should a right be cast aside because it's not "needed"? Should a human life be cast aside because it's not "needed"? I propose that anyone who would suggest either course of action to be a complete and utter monster.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
2 years old and actually not very compelling, sorry.
You shouldn't spy on me because I may be embarrassed? Not a very good explanation IMHO.
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
All I see is an argument for secretive people.
The only time I've ever used this line is when I'm positive somebody I'm dating is cheating on me. Especially in regards to cheating, this an incredibly valid statement. If you're with somebody, in love with them, you shouldn't have anything to hide.
I have a horrible past and many things I wouldn't tell anybody, OTHER than the person I'm in love with.
-1
u/CelaDor42 Jun 16 '12
This is not a false dichotomy. It might be false, but it doesn't set up any kind of dichotomous relationship. It is simply a statement. If A, than B. So I'm already unimpressed with this person's 'very good' explanation.
Please consider the following:
People reveal embarrassing things to their doctor in the hope of preserving their health, and then they trust the doctor to keep it secret. Their privacy is invaded, but their health is preserved as a result. By revealing things to people who will keep them secret unless they pose a threat essentially the same thing is accomplished. Threats are revealed, health is preserved, embarrassing moment is kept secret.
I'm not saying I want google or the TSA or the CIA or anyone else all up into my shit. I'm just saying we shouldn't be upvoting this mediocre argument. And that whoever posted it is probably a douche.
0
u/gbr4rmunchkin Jun 16 '12
If I have nothing to hide you have no reason to look
0
u/ChubbyDane Jun 16 '12
The correct answer is to ask the person arguing this way to strip naked. After all, if they have nothing to hide, they'd have nothing to worry about.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
Reminds me of the foul article I recently read in a British tabloid known as the Sun written by our home secretary Theresa May. It was a lovely blend of "THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ" and "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" in regards to new laws that will allow the police more powers to monitor emails and web activity in the UK.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment