Why privacy is important, and having "nothing to hide" is irrelevant (2016)
Claims that “I have nothing to hide” are challenged as naive in an era of mass surveillance, data brokerage and frequent leaks. Commenters argue that privacy is less about concealing wrongdoing and more about maintaining autonomy and power balance, preventing misuse of sensitive or contextual data, and guarding against future regime or norm changes that could criminalize past behavior. They highlight concrete harms—identity theft, discrimination, coercion, political targeting—and call for stronger legal protections, personal privacy practices, and more effective civic engagement to resist both state and corporate overreach.
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.”