The Nothing-To-Hide Argument

Daniel J. Solove’s “The Nothing to Hide Argument”, an article discussing why society has privacy when there is nothing to hide. The main issue in this article is deciding whether society should have privacy or not. Solove begins to build his argument with different sources that he has found intriguing and starts to add his own personal opinions towards the situations. His argument is more about the effects of privacy than just a person hiding their mistakes Daniel Solove’s argument is supporting privacy, he believes that everyone should have the privileged to have privacy, but he also doesn’t care that the government is watching the people, because the people don’t really need to hide anything to begin with. The only problem towards the government is how they manage the situation-he just wants the issues to change.

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor at Princeton University and the University of Melbourne that studies Bioethics, Philosophy and Public Ethnics. This essay “Visible Man: Ethnics in a World without Secrets” focuses on transparency and personal privacy. One can see after reading this essay, Singer is in favor of openness, but he also notes that the government misuses these technologies. Privacy is defined “as the claim of individuals, groups to determine when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others”. Goldman explains surveillance as “a close observation of someone to catch them in wrongdoing” (326). Sousveillance is “recording of an activity from the perspective of everyday lifestyle” (“Sousveillance”). Before 9/11 the government respected individual privacy and acted accordingly by not spying on its citizens to the extent that it does so now. This makes one wonder; do American citizens really have a right to privacy? The answer to this is no. Because events like 9/11 have happened, the government now has the right to invade its citizen’s privacy by, preventing prejudices between authorities and citizens, installing security cameras and reading our social media accounts .

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

Every citizen has a fundamental right to privacy and this is enshrined in the constitution. The event of losing privacy is a chilling experience similar to being laid naked in public. This situation mainly occurs when police arrests a suspect and searching everything, even the unnecessary private belongings in the name of conducting investigations. The common intrusion to personal information nowadays is seizure of cell phone by the police in arrest cases (Stephens et al. 31). The awareness of ones right to privacy and

Is the issue of privacy in the context of our modern world easy to comprehend? Are privacy and cyber security one of the most pressing issues in our world today, or can we leave the task up to our government officials to regulate? These are all questions that law professor Daniel J. Solove attempts to answer. Armed with the help of privacy specialists, authors and blog commenters, Solove begins to unpack the nuanced dichotomy between privacy, surveillance and data collection. There are many opposing viewpoints that seek to sway the reader’s attention from the task at hand, which is demystifying the certain perils of our transparent world, which can be somewhat difficult to wrap the reader’s head around. The article’s rationale, while scattered, is consistent and layered in thought. While his credentials and literary examples bring an element of validity to the table, the nothing-to-hide argument messes with his rationale.

Governments have always claimed that there is a trade-off between individual freedom and national security, that both can’t mutually exist in their full capacity. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 not only fuelled this argument for America but for other countries across the world. But this invasion of privacy in order to weed out the ‘bad guys’ really isn’t as effective or necessary as it's made out to be, and, if anything, poses potential harm to

Privacy either encourages or is a necessary factor of human securities and fundamental value such as human embarrassment, independence, distinctiveness, freedom, and public affection. Being completely subject to mutual scrutiny will begin to lose self-respect, independence, distinctiveness, and freedom as a result of the sometimes strong burden to conform to public outlooks.

To take away a man’s right to privacy is to take away his right to live. In the totalitarian government of the novel 1984 by George Orwell and the article “Personal privacy up for grabs” by C. Mitchell Shaw, there lies a sense of knowledge that constant watch does not signify safety or true freedom. Rather, both written pieces focus on the belief that a man without the freedom to act in private without observation is not a man at all--his existence is erased in the process. By analyzing the article “Personal privacy up for grabs” and the novel 1984 we can further grasp the importance and impact of the loss of privacy in society. The intimacies and secrets of life that we ourselves should have the right to determine whom to

Surveillance technology has advanced far beyond anything Orwell imagined, and the terms “Orwellian” and “Big Brother is watching” are often used in conjunction with remote control cameras and internet tracking technology. In 1984, the book provides a cautionary tale about the potential of surveillance technology to allow an authoritarian government to control the population. Technology has the capability to not allow privacy. This is important because one day we could have a society like in 1984.

We live in a world where sometimes our privacy is in direct opposition to our safety and ability to counter threats to society (Gergory, 2008)

Recent scandals involving the NSA and reports about the government’s use of surveillance technology have called the current ethics of maintaining public security into question. These events have caused us to ask what our privacy is worth in an age of global terrorism. Orwell’s warning that totalitarian regimes’ reliance on surveillance and the invasion of privacy to restrict individual freedom and endanger citizens is still relevant today. Although the invasion of privacy is sometimes necessary to ensure the security of citizens, it may cause people to question the legitimacy of their government’s programs surrounding surveillance.

In most of the deliberation about privacy rights to online content, someone section of people say “Why do you worry about it, if you have got nothing to hide?” Most of the people debating about privacy issues thinks of the cliché, what’s the big deal? If you’re not doing anything embarrassing or illegal, then there’s nothing to hide. For a period of time, people have used this fallacy to deviate the reasons for the need to protect our privacy. But, as Daniel J. Solove expounds in his outstanding article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, this argument suffers a serious catastrophe because it is based on the premise that privacy is only about hiding or protecting “bad things”

In times of national crisis, men and women position their lives in danger to defend this country. To prevent jeopardy such as terrorism, many would argue that giving up minor privacy rights is a diminutive valuation. But think twice. The element of privacy is practically chipping away and the privacy of violation is closing in. Without privacy, no individual would possess an authentic character. In Peter Singer’s essay, “Invisible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets,” he advocated that the feeling of being watch propels someone to become more amiable and honest. How an individual behaves themselves depends on the weight of social

In this paper, I will argue against government surveillance advocates. In recent years, many whistleblowers have come forward with information concerning government surveillance activities. These activities appear to be putting citizens’ right to privacy at risk, because of that, many have been trying to figure out the intent of such acts.