Almost one year ago I made this post about how the Wikipedia page for the “Nothing to hide” argument removed the text stating that it is a logical fallacy. I advocated for it to be added back. Three days after that post it was added back.
Exactly one year, to the day, after the logical fallacy text was removed, it got removed again. On October 19th of this year, a different user removed the text from the Wikipedia page, despite plenty of evidence that the “Nothing to hide” argument is a logical fallacy.
I am back here, once again, advocating that the text be added back.
P.S. It’s an absolutely crazy coincidence that the same edit happened to the same page on the same day exactly one year apart.
I’ve commented it in the other post, but in my opinion, the issue of the “nothing to hide” -> “no worry in showing” statement is that in between lines (specially in the context for which it’s used) it seems to want to imply that having something to hide must be something rare or perhaps wrong… as if it were not possible to want to hide things that are good for society to keep hidden.
This isn’t a formal, logical fallacy, but an informal one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
From a perspective free of presuppositions and biases, I don’t think the logic of the argument on itself is wrong, because of course I wouldn’t be worried about my privacy if I had no interest in keeping my private information hidden… but the premise isn’t true here! the context in which the argument is used is the problem… not the logic of it.
It’s not incorrect to say: “nothing to hide” -> “no worry in showing” …what’s incorrect is assuming that the “nothing to hide” antecedent is true for all law abiding citizens …as if people didn’t have an interest in keeping perfectly legal and legitimate things hidden and safe from as many prying eyes as possible. The fallacy is in the way that it’s used, they are pretending that this means people shouldn’t be worried, when in fact it means the opposite, since everyone does, in fact, have information that should remain hidden. For our own safety and the safety of our society! …so everyone should in fact be worried about breaches in privacy.
See this discussion post. Is this my oppinion? No, but it’s probably the reason why. Consider making your point where Wikipedia editors will actually read it.
it seems to me that people are arguing over semantics why it shouldn’t be listed as a “logical fallacy”. kinda reminds me of people arguing about semantics on why i shouldn’t call people nazis when they’re not actually members of the NSDAP. fucking infuriating.
It’s more like calling “nazi” to all forms of authoritarian positions, even the left-wing authoritarians in the opposite side of the spectrum.
There’s a distinction between “informal fallacy” and “formal / logical fallacy”. Both have separate articles in wikipedia as well. Why not just call it “fallacy” without categorizing it into a specific subcategory it does not fit anyway?
This seems a good answer, let’s go with this!
If anyone utters this argument i´ll hit them with “okay give me your phone and let me look through your browser history, pictures and messages.”
You won’t ask for bank statements or email passwords? I mean, they really have nothing to hide.
Or just: “if you have nothing to hide, why do you close and lock the bathroom door?”
It’s clearer about different kinds of privacy. Sometimes you just don’t want people looking at you doing things even if you’re not doing anything illegal.
Better yet say “Then give me your bank account info and social security number”
You have nothing to hide now, but when laws change, now there’s evidence you broke the law.
I find that people who say ‘I’ve nothing to hide’ haven’t really thought it through. Mainly because, in most of the general public’s mind, there is a disconnect between their daily lives and their online lives. Instead of being condescending to them, run through a couple of obvious scenarios with them:
- You have keys and locks they go to. Maybe they go to your car, front or back door, or tool shed. Why? Keys and locks prevent unauthorized access. They do not portend guilt in any way.
- You have window blinds and even black out curtains covering them. Why? What would be your reaction to a law that made window blinds and curtains illegal because the authorities having jurisdiction can’t see what you are doing in your house?
- Would you be ok if a live feed of your bathroom or bedroom be broadcast to the internet for all to see? Why not?
Usually, running through daily things people do and contrasting them with privacy, security, and anonymity, I can get them to realize that yes, they too enjoy, nay, demand privacy, security, and anonymity in their daily lives, and that their online presence should not be any different.
The average Joe citizen really has no idea what goes on behind all those pretty pictures on their screen, and they could almost be forgiven for that. I’ve had a computer in front of me since the mid 70s and I openly admit, computers and networking are complex beasts. Even I have not plumbed the depths. Someone here made a comment once that if their knowledge was a 25’ tape measure, they might know an inch, and I think that is applicable.
We, as the stewards of the secret knowledge, should not brow beat those who may be unenlightened. They are not sheep, they are not normies, they are not idiots. They just have no clue, so it behooves us to educate and assist those who do not understand, without making them feel like they’re stupid. The more educated the populace, the further our privacy, security, and anonymity mission is spread.
John Oliver did a good bit on this with Edward Snowden. He advocated that the messaging should be “do you want the government to have access to your dick pics.” Surveyed people on the street that didn’t seem to care less about privacy but as soon as they started thinking about their dick pics being available to the government… the tone changed.
the tone changed
It does, especially when you make it a personal connection to their daily lives, which I always try to do. The vast majority of people don’t really think in terms we as privacy advocates do. There are many factors. As I mentioned, shit’s very complex. People are very busy now days just to make ends meet. Usually both parents work, come home, spend a little time with the family and collapse in bed only to do the same tomorrow, until the weekend when they catch up on household chores, spend time with their children, try to rest up for the next 5 or 6 work days. They don’t have the time to read the Unix manual, much less understand it. So I try to break things down in digestible bits so as not to overwhelm.
“I have nothing to hide therefore you have no reason to look”
Oh, you have nothing to hide? Let me take a look at your butthole then
Okay, how about we rephrase “Nothing to hide” and change it to “Everything to show”. Doesn’t sound good, does it?
As an aside. this stupid, tired argument is old enough to be of drinking age. Let. It. Die.
I unfortunately still encounter it irl.
“It is not that I have something to hide; it is just that I have nothing that I want you to know.”
“I require privacy not to conceal some malice in my own actions; but to protect against the malice of those seeking to abuse that authority.”
My immediate knee jerk reaction whenever someone has said this to me has always been “the law is so labyrinthine and convoluted that I may be breaking the law and not even know it.” I don’t trust the law to not fuck me.
I don’t see how it is a logical fallacy. A fallacy is when the conclusion is not supported by the premises. “Nothing to hide” is only one of those two required elements, the premise. The conclusion is undefined and might or might not be supported by the premise.
“Nothing to hide” is often a fallacy when arguing, say, government surveillance. “If you have nothing to hide you’ll accept metal detectors at the airport” is a fallacy. I accept metal detectors, but it’s because I value everyone’s safety over my minor invasion of privacy, I don’t think the premise of “nothing to hide” leads to the conclusion.
But I can’t say for sure every “nothing to hide” argument would be a fallacy without the rest of the argument.
“Your mom’s butthole has nothing to hide so guess what pics are going on facebook now, bitch”
I disagree with the ‘nothing to hide’-argument, but can you please explain why it’s a logical fallacy?
I’m not some great logician or anything, but in its most basic framing “You don’t need to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide” would be along the lines of a proving too much fallacy as the conclusion is much too broad for the argument of just having nothing to hide. As with a lot of informal fallacies (fallacies made due to content and/or context of the argument), you could probably ascribe a few of them to this statement, for example you could probably correctly state that this is a thought-terminating cliché as well.
Depending on how it is deployed, as described in one of the comments of the linked post, this could also constitute a formal fallacy (reasoning with a flaw in its structure), specifically denying the antecedent. As a TL;DR, the structure would have to be “If you have something to hide then you should worry about surveillance [if p then q], therefore if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn’t worry about surveillance [if !p then !q]”.
In my personal view call it a fallacy or not, the strongest arguments against “nothing to hide” have nothing to do with its fallacious nature or lack thereof. Additionally, demonstrating that an argument is fallacious just demonstrates that the argument needs to be reconstructed, rephrased, or better supported, not that its conclusion is false (else you fall victim to argument from fallacy, aka the fallacy fallacy).
