Nothing to hide argument (fallacy)
Nothing to hide argument (fallacy)
en.wikipedia.org
Nothing to hide argument - Wikipedia
5 comments
-
-
Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean I trust the intentions of the people trying to violate my privacy
-
The state of being watched constantly does harm in itself, even if we are doing nothing wrong. Because we are left to constantly look over our shoulders, like prey animals
-
-
Everyone who cares about privacy needs to have a response to this fallacy practiced and ready to go. The aim should be to convince skeptics that they too already have "things to hide", or at least that they might show a bit of solidarity with the good guys who do.
Rhetorical questions can that be effective:
- Money: How much did you make last month? Oh! That's private, right.
- Health: Would you be happy if your medical insurer could somehow get access to your browsing history? Hmm?
- Politics: So you really are an open book with nothing to hide! Fine. What about whistleblowers, investigative journalists, dissidents, etc? If we're all shouting "I have nothing to hide - be my guest, spy on me!", how effective do you think they're going to be at holding the powerful to account - on our behalf?
The last argument is the really powerful one, but unfortunately it's pretty hard to pull off.
-
it's a false dichotomy. the issue is not whether you have something to hide, as this "hiding" implies something sinister, the issue is you deciding what you share.
when I'm not blasting the contents of my morning's bowel movements across all my social profiles, that don't mean I'm hiding it, it means I haven't decided to share it. and I won't allow my government, service provider, software or hardware to do it for me.
You have nothing to hide, until your government outlaws something in the future that you have to hide.