This is probably too brief, but here's Claude's take on a summary:
Here is a one page summary of the article "I've Got Nothing to Hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy by Daniel J. Solove:
Solove argues that the "nothing to hide" argument, which contends that there is no threat to privacy if a person has nothing embarrassing or illegal to conceal, stems from a narrow conception of privacy. He proposes a pluralistic framework for understanding privacy, grounded in Wittgenstein's concept of family resemblances. Privacy violations consist of a web of related problems, not connected by a common element, but resembling each other.
Solove's taxonomy of privacy problems includes four categories: information collection, information processing, information dissemination, and invasion. Harms include chilling effects, power imbalances, breaches of confidentiality, and exclusion from decision-making processes. Many privacy issues cause structural problems rather than individual injuries.
The "nothing to hide" argument focuses too narrowly on disclosure of secrets. It fails to account for contextual integrity, social value in keeping promises of confidentiality, dangers of aggregation, problems of exclusion, and difficulties in rebutting predictive prophesies about one's behavior. The debate should center on oversight and accountability procedures, not whether certain government actions should be allowed. In short, by conceptualizing privacy more pluralistically, the deficiencies of the "nothing to hide" argument become apparent.