Almost one year ago I made this post about how the Wikipedia page for the “Nothing to hide” argument removed the text stating that it is a logical fallacy. I advocated for it to be added back. Three days after that post it was added back.
Exactly one year, to the day, after the logical fallacy text was removed, it got removed again. On October 19th of this year, a different user removed the text from the Wikipedia page, despite plenty of evidence that the “Nothing to hide” argument is a logical fallacy.
I am back here, once again, advocating that the text be added back.
P.S. It’s an absolutely crazy coincidence that the same edit happened to the same page on the same day exactly one year apart.
Oh, you have nothing to hide? Let me take a look at your butthole then
“I have nothing to hide therefore you have no reason to look”
If anyone utters this argument i´ll hit them with “okay give me your phone and let me look through your browser history, pictures and messages.”
Better yet say “Then give me your bank account info and social security number”
Or just: “if you have nothing to hide, why do you close and lock the bathroom door?”
It’s clearer about different kinds of privacy. Sometimes you just don’t want people looking at you doing things even if you’re not doing anything illegal.
You won’t ask for bank statements or email passwords? I mean, they really have nothing to hide.
The crux of the issue is that it’s not the citizens that determine what is hide-worthy.
Are you vocally unhappy with how corporations wreck the Earth and our future for monetary profit? Well then you might have something to hide. Are you not heterosexual and cisgendered? Well then you might have something to hide. Do you complain about taxes being too high while not seeing too many benefits and you’d prefer if they didn’t go to finance wars/invasions and subsidize harmful industries? Well then you might have something to hide.
The ruling class wants citizens with nothing to hide. Those don’t pose any risk to their power and privilege.
And adding a quote I have saved up:
“Whenever the subject of surveillance by police and government agencies is discussed online, invariably some John Doe will come along and declare that they are quite happy to give up some or all of their privacy in exchange for improved security, on the grounds that they have nothing to hide, and “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” from the authorities, or from whomever else might gain access to your “private” data (this can include private security companies, private investigators, banks, insurance companies, lawyers, employers, computer hackers, and any individual or company willing to pay for the information. And that’s in addition to the thousands of agents working at GCHQ, NSA etc.). Dissidents languishing in Chinese prisons and Russian gulags - not to mention millions of Jews and dissidents rounded up by the Nazis in the 1930s - might take a slightly different view”
They advertised maternity products to women that did not know that they were pregnant yet.
The ability for corporations to manipulate customers, and governments to manipulate citizens with the level of information they could gain, mean that democracy and freedom can only be protected if information on people is protected.
I find that people who say ‘I’ve nothing to hide’ haven’t really thought it through. Mainly because, in most of the general public’s mind, there is a disconnect between their daily lives and their online lives. Instead of being condescending to them, run through a couple of obvious scenarios with them:
- You have keys and locks they go to. Maybe they go to your car, front or back door, or tool shed. Why? Keys and locks prevent unauthorized access. They do not portend guilt in any way.
- You have window blinds and even black out curtains covering them. Why? What would be your reaction to a law that made window blinds and curtains illegal because the authorities having jurisdiction can’t see what you are doing in your house?
- Would you be ok if a live feed of your bathroom or bedroom be broadcast to the internet for all to see? Why not?
Usually, running through daily things people do and contrasting them with privacy, security, and anonymity, I can get them to realize that yes, they too enjoy, nay, demand privacy, security, and anonymity in their daily lives, and that their online presence should not be any different.
The average Joe citizen really has no idea what goes on behind all those pretty pictures on their screen, and they could almost be forgiven for that. I’ve had a computer in front of me since the mid 70s and I openly admit, computers and networking are complex beasts. Even I have not plumbed the depths. Someone here made a comment once that if their knowledge was a 25’ tape measure, they might know an inch, and I think that is applicable.
We, as the stewards of the secret knowledge, should not brow beat those who may be unenlightened. They are not sheep, they are not normies, they are not idiots. They just have no clue, so it behooves us to educate and assist those who do not understand, without making them feel like they’re stupid. The more educated the populace, the further our privacy, security, and anonymity mission is spread.
John Oliver did a good bit on this with Edward Snowden. He advocated that the messaging should be “do you want the government to have access to your dick pics.” Surveyed people on the street that didn’t seem to care less about privacy but as soon as they started thinking about their dick pics being available to the government… the tone changed.
“It is not that I have something to hide; it is just that I have nothing that I want you to know.”
“I require privacy not to conceal some malice in my own actions; but to protect against the malice of those seeking to abuse that authority.”
My immediate knee jerk reaction whenever someone has said this to me has always been “the law is so labyrinthine and convoluted that I may be breaking the law and not even know it.” I don’t trust the law to not fuck me.
Why are you advocating here? Just add it back or post on the talk page.
“if you got nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about”
“Anything to hide in your house? So I can come in whenever I want for no reasons at all?”
“Get off my property!”
As if privacy wasn’t the most essential piece of property they have in their lives.
The problem with using that to argue with them is that they already know the value of their front door, phone lock screen, and their bathroom door for their privacy. What they don’t care about is the privacy invasion they don’t see: surveillance.
The best argument I could come up with to counter is using surveillance pricing as an example. That and insecure home security cameras.
Oh i agree, abstract concepts are diffcult.
“Your mom’s butthole has nothing to hide so guess what pics are going on facebook now, bitch”
Wasn’t “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.” a nazi talking point back in hitler times?
I disagree with the ‘nothing to hide’-argument, but can you please explain why it’s a logical fallacy?
I’m not some great logician or anything, but in its most basic framing “You don’t need to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide” would be along the lines of a proving too much fallacy as the conclusion is much too broad for the argument of just having nothing to hide. As with a lot of informal fallacies (fallacies made due to content and/or context of the argument), you could probably ascribe a few of them to this statement, for example you could probably correctly state that this is a thought-terminating cliché as well.
Depending on how it is deployed, as described in one of the comments of the linked post, this could also constitute a formal fallacy (reasoning with a flaw in its structure), specifically denying the antecedent. As a TL;DR, the structure would have to be “If you have something to hide then you should worry about surveillance [if p then q], therefore if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn’t worry about surveillance [if !p then !q]”.
In my personal view call it a fallacy or not, the strongest arguments against “nothing to hide” have nothing to do with its fallacious nature or lack thereof. Additionally, demonstrating that an argument is fallacious just demonstrates that the argument needs to be reconstructed, rephrased, or better supported, not that its conclusion is false (else you fall victim to argument from fallacy, aka the fallacy fallacy).
