Privacy and the "Nothing To Hide" Argument

privacyprof writes "One of the most common responses of those unconcerned about government surveillance or privacy invasions is 'I've got nothing to hide.' According to the 'nothing to hide' argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The 'nothing to hide' argument is quite prevalent. Is there a way to respond to this argument that would really register with people in the general public? In a short essay, 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Professor Daniel Solove takes on the 'nothing to hide' argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings." At the base of the fallacy, as Bruce Schneier has noted, is the "faulty premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong."

Comments

Re:Wired: The Eternal Value of Privacy

[fyngyrz]

It's a somewhat higher hurdle to jump, in that it requires a constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition against ex post facto laws

No such hurdle exists. The government makes ex post facto laws, and the supreme court approves them when it gets to see them, regardless of the prohibitions of the constitution. Two examples come readily to mind. One is the prohibition on felons from owning firearms, though the law did not exist at the time of the felon's sentencing and the judge did not declare that a prohibition of owning firearms was a specific part of the punishment to be meted out. I know of no government excuse for this. The other is the registering of "sexual offenders" (Pee on a bush lately? Date someone a year too young on the wrong side of an age line?) where again, the registration was not ordered by a judge and no such law existed at the time, but the law applies retroactively to offenders, thereby increasing the punishment applied by the government. There is an excuse for this one, the argument is that "registration is not punishment, it is just a government function, and therefore this is not ex post facto." The argument is clearly specious, but that doesn't stop them from employing it. See how you feel if you imagine they put your name on such a list. That'll tell you if it is punishment, or just a triviality like listing you as a property owner.

Similarly, the inversion of the commerce clause has been used to create an excuse for the feds to (for example) use the legal system to attack users, growers and vendors of medical marijuana in California. The argument is that the pot, grown in California, distributed in California, used in California, "could" (cough) have been interstate commerce, and so the feds declare they have jurisdiction. The constitution clearly says they have jurisdiction in interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce, and again, we see the government doing anything it wants, regardless of what the constitution says.

I could go on for quite a while, pointing out broad and obvious constitutional violations in the areas of free speech, gun ownership, religion, warrants, article 10 and 14 violations... the point is, though, that the government is completely out of hand and what the constitution says they can or cannot do has long been either a non-issue or one that will crawl through the courts and then ruled into oblivion as have the exd post facto issues.

The constitution offers the means to make changes; but this is not convenient enough, and so we are faced on all sides with unconstitutional law, and told that it'll all be worked out in court if necessary, and in the meantime, comply or face the music.

For your reference: Ex post facto law as the term applies to the constitution, Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1: Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2: Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4: Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.