Privacy and the “Nothing to Hide” Argument

For decades, the advocates of privacy have been criticized as alarmists. The word “paranoid” has been used. People who see privacy advocates in a negative light justify their stance with the age-old argument of “I have nothing to hide“.

These critics may want to review the case of Jenny Paton is the United Kingdom:

“… the intrusions visited on Jenny Paton, a 40-year-old mother of three, were startling just the same. Suspecting Ms. Paton of falsifying her address to get her daughter into the neighborhood school, local officials here began a covert surveillance operation. They obtained her telephone billing records. And for more than three weeks in 2008, an officer from the Poole education department secretly followed her, noting on a log the movements of the “female and three children” and the “target vehicle” (that would be Ms. Paton, her daughters and their car).

It turned out that Ms. Paton had broken no rules…”

link: Britons Weary of Surveillance in Minor Cases

Ms Paton broke no rules. There was an intrusion into her life in a search for some wrong-doing. Suspicion is sufficient. There does not have to be just cause.

One of the best examinations of the “nothing-to-hide” argument was presented by Professor Daniel J. Solove, from the George Washington University Law School. One of the premises of the nothing-to-hide argument is that belief that innocence can withstand any examination.

In theory that may be true. However, there is a shift of approach. Now, the paradigm is suspicion until innocence is proven. An example of that is the search and seizure of electronic equipment at border crossing, without just cause.

Similar to Jenny Paton, many people will have intrusions into their lives. The lack of wrong-doing has to be proven. At one time, there was the presumption of innocence. Those days are long gone. The admonition of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas has been set aside. Justice Douglas cautioned that “the right to be left alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms”. And that is privacy.

Catherine Forsythe