Why Privacy Matters So If You Have Nothing?

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.

Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.

Daniel Solove writes in his article that the “nothing to hide” argument is a terrible argument, because privacy is important to everyone and everyone has something to hide. Solove writes that if you break the argument down to its core the argument means nothing. Solove addresses the argument for the “nothing to hide” belief by stating why some agree with the argument because the argument can be protection against acts of terror, then describing how the government knowing everything on someone can cause plenty of problems as he describes. Solove takes the explanation of privacy to a place that most people ,if not all ,can relate to just to define privacy more than the general consensus. Solove gave a few

Privacy is commonly defined as the act of being free from any form of surveillance or refers to a state of being in isolation, or a private place free from all unauthorized, or unlawful disturbance from others. In today’s ever-advancing society, it seems that this definition will soon need to be revised. Orwell in 1984 had conceived a society where personal privacy and space is never permitted. Every person under the party’s control is to be observed 24 hours, even by their own family members and friends. Privacy is a necessity for all humans, we mistakenly give other people too much power, as we continue to accept all types of new technology along with our growing need for stronger security. We are soon to find ourselves in

With social media growing there seems to be a lack of privacy. Everyone posts where they are and what they are doing and then everyone that follows reads the post and knows that is happening like they are there in person. In “Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy” by Don Tapscott mentions the author of Whole Earth Catalog, Stewart Brand, who said “I’d be totally happy if my personal DNA mapping was published” (Tapscott 118). It is mind blowing how open many people are on social media. By, metaphorically, releasing one’s DNA mapping anyone has complete access to creating a clone. Unless someone has a couple thousand dollars laying around ones DNA mapping is far fetch, however by posting the street one lives on, on a public site is just as bad.

In a world about privacy people said the usual phrase “if the government wanting to search my info let them because I don’t got nothing bad to hide,” well that is what author Solove J. Daniel is about to write an article about. “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument” is an epideictic article showing the problems of the phrase by turning it into a pervasive issue about privacy. Not to mention government has seized the opportunity to use the phrase to gain easy access information to the citizens. For example in Britain they have install thousands of cameras and use this phrase, ““If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve have nothing to fear”” (735). Mr. Solove is trying to point out that the phrase has not only minimized privacy issue,

Solove tailors his message to this stakeholder by providing a better definition for the term “privacy”, which, in turn, creates a framework for how privacy and privacy violations should be evaluated in courts. Solove is advocates for these lawyers to amend how they understand privacy, and better suit the general concerns of the public. For instance, Solove expresses his opinion about a law on surveillance that is enforced differently based on whether the setting of the situation was in a public or private ambience. Known as the secrecy paradigm, if the information was public and not secret before, then there is no privacy violation as a result of the gathering and exchange of information. He asserts that this law should be re-assessed because surveillance can have adverse affects, regardless of the environment. Surveillance can restrict and alter people’s actions, and unconsciously allowing the government to affect their acts and creating architectural imbalance in society. Therefore, lawmakers could be major stakeholders in this piece because Solove discusses laws that should be reviewed, in order to better accommodate for privacy violations and the negative consequences that are associated with these

Surveillance is defined as any form of concentrated attention or observation to personal information for the purposes of influence, management, or control (Lyon, 2009, p.1). While privacy is defined as a state of being free from others attention and from being observed. The two terms together form a contradiction, as they oppose each other and relate to the major inconsistency of equality (everyone being under surveillance) verses freedom (people’s right to privacy), since the enlightenment. Ever since reading George Orwell’s 1984, with ‘Big Brother’, I have been interested in the topic of privacy verses surveillance in terms of fighting crime and preventing terrorism. In my unexamined opinion, it is apparent that it is a continuous issue in

This essay is going to critically assess the link between having the right to privacy and if privacy is in the public interest.

In his October 2014 TEDGlobal speech, “Why Privacy Matter?”, Glenn Greenwald argues the importance of privacy and how people constantly crave for privacy. He references Edward Snowden’s leaked archives as well as two well-known CEOs, Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg, to support his argument. The purpose of his speech was to inform and persuade his audience how privacy still matters and those who say otherwise are lying. Greenwald gave an emotional appeal to successfully reach out to the audience and persuade them. However, Greenwald’s ability to build credibility and ethos was weak and therefore, impacted his argument.

Recently the topic of privacy has been brought up in the news since President Trump signed a bill to repeal internet privacy, giving internet provider companies the right to sell your internet history (Fung, 2017). Some say this is isn’t right, and that the government has no right to delve into our business. Other people think that as long as you aren’t look at anything bad, you should have nothing to worry about. Privacy isn’t an entirely necessary thing to have, but it is a nice thing to have. And in today’s world, where technology is taking over almost every aspect of our lives, soon enough the government might be able to control us.

The first paragraph of this article is the core argument and talking point for the rest of the paper. “When the government gathers or analyzes personal information, many people say they're not worried. “I’ve got nothing to hide," they declare. "Only if you're doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don't deserve to keep it private." In the most extreme version of the “nothing to hide” argument the author of the paper Prof. Daniel Solove's adds some responses to counter it:

In June 2013, a man named Edward Snowden released an enormous amount of documentation about how the National Security Agency (NSA) was literally copying everything on the Internet. This came as a surprise to many Americans who thought that they were safe from state sponsored surveillance. “I’m not doing anything so I have anything to worry about.” seems logical at first but, with a little inquiry, one can discover that they do in fact have some things to hide. For example, if someone truly doesn’t have anything to worry about, then they should be able to provide anyone their bank account number and pin on request? That’s a simple look at why privacy and encryption are such an important issue. Most people don’t think about privacy much

They support this view by pointing out that many Americans willing give away their privacy, often in the name of convenience or security. It should be made clear, however, that many restrictions of privacy are executed by the government through actions such as the controversial Patriot Act. Of those who argue against expanded privacy laws, John Yoo defends the Patriot Act as follows, “the Patriot Act itself was a grab bag of common sense modifications, drafted primarily by career civil servants in the law enforcement and intelligence communities, to update our surveillance laws for a world of e-mail, cell phones, and texting”. He then goes on to state that although “government can go too far in favor of security, it can also go too far in the other direction,” even claiming that “fear of sharing information between government agencies, undoubtedly contributed to the September 11 attacks” (Yoo pg. 23). As Mr. Yoo points out, expanded surveillance can indeed be used to help protect the public. Mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Richard Gray, presented the possible benefits of this to the city safety commission. He states that without “the presence of video cameras, many perpetrators of both property crimes and violent crimes would not be apprehended and prosecuted” (Gray pg. 98). Those who oppose privacy

In Glenn Greenwald’s TED talk “Why privacy matters”, he argues that the issue of privacy effects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. He argues the importance of privacy and how government has turned the internet into “an unprecedented zone of mass, indiscriminate surveillance. The main point that Greenwald uses, is that only bad people have a reason to protect their privacy. In this world they are two types of people, good people and bad people. Good people are those people who uses the internet for good purposes such as work and for family, and bad people are those who uses the internet for the wrong reasons such as planning violent crimes. With that, we are able to differentiate the difference between people and their privacy.