zlacker

>>_____k+(OP)
The simplest retort I've heard to "I have nothing to hide" is "then send me a nude photo of yourself." Theres nothing wrong with nude bodies, but it is definitely private. I.e. privacy has nothing to do with hiding wrong/illegal things.

(obligatory disclaimer: a little inaccuracy saves a lot of explanation, but I think this gets the gist across)

>>chacha+hx
The article addresses that exact retort, and others in the same style. Here is what it says.

> Such responses only attack the nothing to hide argument in its most extreme form, which is not particularly strong.

The article is way more nuanced, it makes a point in attacking the real argument and not the strawman. Framing the debate into a privacy/security tradeoff.

And btw, my naked body ranks pretty low in the list of things I want to hide. I just don't walk around naked in public because most people wouldn't want me to, it may even be illegal. It is interesting however how a government that says you should have nothing to hide when it comes to surveillance also says that naked bodies must stay hidden.

>>GuB-42+4O
The most private part of your body is often not covered anyway. Your fingerprint.

>>quickt+ds1
Or iris.

And then there's the people whose minds are so open their brains are falling out ... ;-)