http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080213055759AAElAZD
Another good point about the “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide” argument
“Innocent until proven guilty. The State has no right to assume that you might be guilty of something in the future, and to use that as an excuse for information gathering.”
Read Morehttp://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/05/is_there_a_good.html
More on the “If you have nothing to hide.. argument”. From the page: “One response that I find particularly compelling is that there is a value in not having to explain and justify oneself”
Read Morehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
An argument I’ve seen used against opponents of ID cards, Phorm and numerous other privacy issues is “If you’ve got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear”. This is a frustrating argument that seems hard to combat. This paper analyses the argument. The general conclusion is that the questions makes a false assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things, whereas in fact it is a much wider issue encompassing such things as aggregation of data, exclusion of access to data causing an uneven distribution of power, etc. Now the challenge is to make this into an easily conveyable response! See also digg comments on the link such as “The nothing to hide argument sounds somewhat Utopian—as if governments were perfect and would never do anything wrong.” This is a good point. There is a lot of implicit trust in the question – that the truth will prevail, nothing can be misinterpreted, no bad judgements are ever made, no innocent people are ever convicted.
Read Morehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633%3Chr
assessment of Clinton & Obama based on what they have actually done
Read More