Talk:Nothing to hide argument

Additional sources
On NewsBank there is a "letter to the editor" indexed in there. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stewart R. Dyckman from Seattle wrote "TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY - MAJORITY HAS NOTHING TO HIDE" published in the Seattle Times on Sunday March 13, 1994 in page B5/Letters (Record number 1899970 ). It is a short letter and he asks "We hope Congress, like the administration, respects the majority "meaning people who "nothing to hide but want the reduction in crime that surveillance helps provide"

Schneier's essay
Bruce Schneier's essay "The Eternal Value of Privacy." is in English on his personal website: https://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6HekBHq3Y - but it also mentions some translations If anyone wants to write an article on the argument in those languages, these resources can help you WhisperToMe (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Danish: http://www.senyt.dk/Default.asp?cw=1264&Dok=427& - http://www.webcitation.org/6HekKCn8y - By Mikael Hartig
 * Italian: http://attivissimo.blogspot.com/2006/05/privacy-e-intercettazioni-parla.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6HekZr8wE - By Paolo Attivissimo - The URL cited on Schneier's page http://www.xerobank.it/index.php/community/articoli/65-privacy-un-valore-per-tutti-anche-per-chi-non-ha-nulla-da-nascondere isn't able to establish a connection and it's not on web.archive.org
 * Japanese: http://www.yamdas.org/column/technique/privacyj.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6HekUfWcR - By "yomoyomo"

Who argues in favor of "nothing to hide"?
Is there anybody who explicitly argues in favor of "nothing to hide"? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As the main contributer to this article and practically the sole contributor to the article on Daniel J. Solove's book on the subject, I believe you would know this better than anyone. I myself have heard the argument used in private conversation, but I think the book you wrote an article on would have more expert information for this encyclopedia. Your question is rather telling, and makes me wonder about the banner that has been placed on this article. If anything, the arguments refuting the "nothing to hide argument" are more prevalent than any supporting it. Schmutzigeskind (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Its impossible to argue on the nothing to hide side. If some person X think "I am not doing something wrong, so I wont hide what I am doing", the word wrong on this line of thought will be based on his worldview, this because being wrong or not is subjective (some think killing a baby is bad even if the pregnant mom and the baby will both die, if they don't do so), so what happened on the guy mind can be changed to "I am not doing something I THINK IS wrong, so I wont hide what I am doing", the problem is that you aren't the one that decide what is wrong or not, so you hide something because others may have a stupid point of view of what is right and wrong.177.92.128.26 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Amerocentric
"we are all subject in the United States" should be changed to something else, like, "citizens of the United States" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Amerocentric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.140.62 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph
I have removed this paragraph from the article (from the "For privacy" section), as it is unencyclopedic (for instance the phrase "plainly absurd") and unsourced:

"Selective application of abusive laws: Every country body of laws contains rules that had become obsolete, taken out of context, made without consideration of their wide effects, or are plainly absurd. Those laws frequently criminalize common behavior, of apparently innocuous acts, on ways that the person may ignore, but which may be used discriminatorily against him, by abusive authorities, or by legal abuse."

I am keeping it here in case someone can make it more encyclopedic and source it. --Jhertel (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should say that I do not personally disagree with the paragraph. I only removed it because it is unencyclopedic and unsourced. It looks like something that could have been written in a book, reflecting the author's opinion; but then it must be a quote, with the author stated. --Jhertel (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Arguments against privacy
I don't consider the statement by Johann Hari to be an argument against privacy. Public and private are literally opposites. What happens in public places is not related to the topic of privacy. It may make people uncomfortable to be surveilled in public places, but that doesn't make it a privacy issue. If you are in an area with no reasonable expectation of privacy, that means you are knowingly subjecting yourself to the possibility of others photographing or even recording video of you. I believe Johann Hari's statement should be moved from the "arguments against privacy" section to a new section. I don't know what that section would be called, but I firmly believe it's not an argument against privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.221.192.244 (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure anything in the "In favor of the argument" section (which used to be "Against privacy") is actually in favor of it. Right now we have two examples of it being repeated (we don't say fallacies have arguments for them because people use them) and Hari's statement which is arguing a different topic than the article is about. It feels like that section is there to keep up an appearance of neutrality. IMO the pro part should be dropped and the arguments against should be labeled something like "Criticism". Pampas Cat! 21:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've gone and restructured that to be a "Criticism" section. It still would benefit from being rewritten as a series of paragraphs explaining what the criticisms are instead of just a list of privacy-celebrity (is that an oxymoron?) quotes, but it's a start. Pampas Cat! 06:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Moot Point
Isn’t this kind of reductive anyway because every government including western governments routinely spy on all of us, have access to all our messages, phones calls. They have significant resources (paid for by taxpayers) and they have the moral legitimacy and the sovereign legitimacy as a state to track all of us. If that’s not the case, then we wouldn’t have significant legislation giving the government the right to spy on us and kill us at will. The idea that any of us have any right to privacy is hilariously childish. None of you have any idea how the real world is run, we are ruled by sociopaths. I don’t give a shit if you delete this, ban my IP from talking. It doesn’t matter, we are all going to be slaughtered like the piece of shit cattle that we are. 2001:8003:E826:6F00:A87F:FA8C:700B:461B (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry if you read this, you can delete this, whoever’s in charge.
 * This was uncalled for and nothing excuses this type of hate especially when people are just people.
 * Not good nor bad; just people.
 * I apologise again for my language. 101.182.223.63 (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)