zlacker

>>syness+(OP)
The issue with the 'nothing to hide' argument is that it puts the burden of proof and determination of whether something is 'hide-worthy' on the target of the inquiry.

If you subscribe to the 'presumed innocent' premise of the law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence) then the burden of proof is on the inquisitor.

Either you believe in presumed innocence or you don't. Pick one.

>>raminf+Ok
My respons to the 'nothing to hide' argument is: "Why are you so scared of things that are hidden?"

That puts them on the defensive. Since now they have to justify their fear for the unknown. And then we're onto the real topic: fear.