Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor and government whistleblower, has been credited with the quote “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”. Snowden has argued that privacy is a fundamental right and that without it, individuals cannot have anything for themselves. The “nothing to hide” argument has been used to defend the collection and use of government data beyond surveillance and disclosure, but critics argue that it is inherently paradoxical and that what is hidden is not necessarily relevant. Snowden has also stated that the burden of justification falls on those seeking to infringe upon human rights, and that nobody needs to justify why they “need” a right.

One thing I often see is people not understanding the difference between secrecy and privacy. They ask why it matters if you’re not doing anything wrong. A UK government minister actually said “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, and then backpedaled when someone pointed out they were quoting Joseph Goebbels. The analogy I’ve seen is simple: I’m sure you don’t do anything illegal in the shower, but I’m also pretty sure most people would be uncomfortable with a law that required you to have a police officer standing in you bathroom with a video camera to record you showering, just in case.

The other thing is the assumption that any information about you that the government actually has about you will only be used against you if you commit a crime, in which case you’ll deserve it - if you’re not a bad person then it’s fine. This is a double fallacy.

First, we’ve seen that information can be used to do all sorts of things regardless of wrongdoing - if someone knows enough about you, they can use it to manipulate you. I don’t mean blackmail or whatever, although that’s an option. I mean that with a clear enough picture of your preferences and biases and habits, someone can tailor their actions and information to your psychology and make you think whatever they want you to agree with.

Second, it assumes that you won’t ever commit a crime because crimes are bad things and you’re not a bad person. This overlooks the possibility of you being mistakenly accused while innocent, but more importantly it overlooks the possibility that the government will change into something that holds different moral values to yours. Even in the modern world we’ve seen places outlaw abortions, or criminalise homosexuality, or pass laws on what religions you’re allowed to follow. If that happens in your country and you find yourself on the wrong side of whatever arbitrary line they’ve now drawn, you may regret giving them so much information about you - information that lets them identify you, prove that you broke their new rules, and ruin your life in so many ways.

The default principal of any exchange with governments, businesses, or any entity taking your information should be to give as much information as is required for them to perform the operation you’re requesting of them, and no more - and wherever possible to only engage with those entities that you trust to have that information; a trust that they earn by a verified and unbroken track record of ethical and trustworthy behaviour.

Edward Snowden remarked:

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.

There is a wikipedia article regarding this argument

“But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.”

Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.

If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that’s when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.

Ask them how much they make or their medical record.

Tell them you will pay google several cents for that info.

Identity theft.

Ask them for their social security number, mother’s maiden name, favorite pet, favorite teacher, high school mascot. It should start to dawn on them

Do you have curtains in your house? Can I look at your income tax records and all purchases made on your visa and bank card?

Saying “I don’t need privacy because I’ve got nothing to hide” is like saying “I don’t need free speech because I’ve got nothing to say”.

I feel like most replies here are missing the point.

The entire premise of the statement is that privacy is about defending your dirty secrets. When people say “nothing to hide” they’re really saying “I’m not going to post about anything I want to hide”, but that still misses the point.

For me it’s the subtle principles of advertising. I don’t want to be advertised to, at all. I certainly don’t want some blog to know what adverts I’m likely to engage with, because that is simply none of their business.

That’s it. If that doesn’t bother some people, that’s entirely fine. I’m a bit weird, and the whole idea of being tracked to figure out what things I might want to buy makes me very grumpy.

Maybe you don’t think you have anything to hide today, but what about the future? Millions of women gave their period-tracking apps that kind of personal/private data when Roe was in effect because at the time, states couldn’t use it to prosecute women who miscarry or get abortions. Now that Roe is gone, that data is out there and can’t be recalled.

By the same token, everyone who went out and got a 23-and-me genetic test gave their genomes to private companies who can legally sell that information to insurance companies that can use that information to hike their premiums or terminate their policies if they think your genes predispose you to some expensive-to-treat condition. Also those family trees don’t lie about whose kids are the product of adultery, hahahahaha

You do have things to hide in the sense that they’re nobody else’s business.

Also, some countries have established digital privacy as a right (in particular, EU countries) and that’s not just about protecting your dirty stinky secrets, it’s also about preventing social media being weaponized as political or information warfare vectors based on private information obtained without your consent. (the same profiling used to target relevant commercial ads to you is also usable to target information warfare and propaganda to your susceptible relatives, and they vote in addition to giving racist rants at holiday dinner)

In other words, your privacy is intrinsically valuable- if it wasn’t, exploiting your private information wouldn’t be a multi-billion-dollar industry

Even if you have nothing to hide yourself (which, as other commenters said, is very unlikely), and can be certain you’ll never have anything to hide ever (even less probable), there will be other people who do have something to hide. That does not mean they are evil (though some are) - maybe they are fighting for a cause, or maybe they are persecuted minorities, or maybe governments and/or powerful organizations will want to bring them harm.

These people, being mere humans, have some minor secrets in their past or present that can be signal-boosted by a malevolent agent to seriously hurt them, their reputation, and/or their social standing. And even if they did mange to obtain the level of sainthood that the have-noving-to-hide folks seem to possess - their perfectly normative personal information can still be used to dox them or retaliate against them in some other way.

If you care about these people and/or any cause they may be fighting for, then you don’t want them to be the only ones who demand privacy. Because:

1. They will effectively be holding a big “I have something to hide” signs, being the only ones that opt to protect their privacy.
2. Governments and companies will have an easy job giving them very small privacy protection, if at all, since there will be no pressure from the general public for privacy protection.

This will make it much easier to persecute minorities and to retaliate against activists, making society as a whole much worse for everyone.

Ask them to poop in front of everyone at work.

Every, single, time, they have to go.

Cite historical examples of seemingly innocuous and public information falling into the wrong hands.

e.g. The Nazis used demographic records (marriages, births, christenings, etc.) in conquered lands to ID Jews and other “undesirables”.

Removed by mod