Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)

Why “nothing to hide” is seen as flawed

• Many argue everyone has something they prefer to keep private (bathroom doors, salaries, passwords, medical and intimate info), and that this is normal, not criminal.
• Privacy is framed as control over one’s “personal sphere” and a power balance issue, not about hiding wrongdoing.
• Several note that today’s harmless data can become dangerous under future laws or regimes (e.g., abortion, anti‑LGBT views or identities, political activism).

Concrete harms from surveillance and data collection

• Data leaks, manipulation, and blind trust in “official” data can enable framing people, identity theft, coercion, blackmail, harassment, and denial of insurance or credit.
• Historical examples (Stasi, Vietnam, profiling of Muslims or suspected communists, minorities) are used to show how profiling and dossiers enable targeted repression and even mass violence.
• Centralized troves plus modern analysis (LLMs, dragnet searches) make it trivial to sift “boring” people’s data when someone decides to target them.

Chilling effects, democracy, and expression

• Surveillance encourages self‑censorship; “preference falsification” is mentioned as people hiding true views.
• Some argue that pervasive monitoring erodes the ability to organize, protest, or mount non‑violent corrections to power.
• Others distinguish surveillance from repression, claiming you can still have democracy and free speech with high surveillance if governments don’t punish dissent.

Corporate incentives and structural risks

• Companies are incentivized to over‑collect data and under‑invest in security, with minimal liability after breaches.
• Surveillance capitalism, targeted ads, and device‑level tracking (phones, smart TVs, Windows Recall) are seen as normalizing constant monitoring.
• Some tie this to broader systemic corruption and “menticidal” manipulation via personalized content and behavior shaping.

How to respond: tools, law, and activism

• Suggestions include reducing data sharing, using privacy‑enhancing tools (privacy guides, VPNs, alt services), supporting advocacy groups, and lobbying local governments.
• Others stress that laws should limit both what data is collected and who can use it and how; collected data is inherently at risk.

Skeptical or minority views

• A few claim they truly “have nothing to hide” and mainly see targeted ads and anti‑terror monitoring as acceptable trade‑offs.
• Some argue the main issue is abusive use, not collection itself, and even foresee social benefits from open data if access is tightly controlled.
• Others worry privacy can protect powerful wrongdoers (tax evasion, opaque state agencies) and conflicts with “information wants to be free.”