zlacker

>>_____k+(OP)
Here's the first listed criticism of the saying on its Wikipedia page [1], by none other than Edward Snowden:

> Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

>>tromp+oz
This one has confused me. A lot of the spirit of it I get behind; I am similarly indignant at the nothing to hide argument, I am similarly appreciative of the value of free speech, and I appreciate the idea that you might hope that you have "something to say", in the sense of having values, or ways in which you are engaged in the world that are important and meaningful to you. And I even understand and support the idea that you are letting a beautiful right go unused if you have "nothing to say."

But, with all of those elements in place, I don't see how they serve to counter the "nothing to hide" argument. As other commenters here have pointed out, and as the paper has pointed out, it's (1) nothing to hide, from whom, and (2) just because you believe your actions are innocent, doesn't mean your information won't be used against you to target you.

But that's very different than the point that is apparently being made about free speech. It may be a bummer to live a life where you have nothing to say, but the failure implied by that is of a different kind.

It may just be that I'm missing an obvious point, but, as far as I can tell, if you have "nothing to say", the problem is that you've resigned yourself to a life that doesn't assert any values or meaning. Meanwhile, the nothing to hide problem relates to not anticipating how bad actors will use your information against you.

It would be a 1:1 analogy if the point being made was, well, you have no information? If you have nothing to hide because you have no significant life attributes or life events, I can see a way that is a criticism of an unfulfilled life, and something that makes the comparison to free speech make sense. But... it's kind of lateral to the concerns about privacy that I take to be the most essential to maintaining it as a right. But again, I may just be missing something obvious.