this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024

203 points (95.1% liked)

Privacy

32442 readers

801 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

203

The "Nothing to hide" argument is a logical fallacy (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In my post on why mass surveillance is not normal, I referenced how the Wikipedia page for the Nothing to hide argument labels the argument as a "logical fallacy." On October 19th, user Gratecznik edited the Wikipedia page to remove the "logical fallacy" text. I am here to prove that the "Nothing to hide" argument is indeed a logical fallacy and go through some arguments against it.

The "Nothing to hide" argument is an intuitive but misleading argument, stating that if a person has done nothing unethical, unlawful, immoral, etc., then there is no reason to hide any of their actions or information. However, this argument has been well covered already and debunked many times (here is one example).

Besides the cost of what it takes for someone to never hide anything, there are many reasons why a person may not want to share information about themselves, even if no misconduct has taken place. The "Nothing to hide" argument intuitively (but not explicitly) assumes that those whom you share your information with will handle it with care and not falsely use it against you. Unfortunately, that is not how it currently works in the real world.

You don't get to make the rules on what is and is not deemed unlawful. Something you do may be ethical or moral, but unlawful and could cost you if you aren't able to hide those actions. For example, whistleblowers try to expose government misconduct. That is an ethical and moral goal, but it does not align with government interests. Therefor, if the whistleblower is not able to hide their actions, they will have reason to fear the government or other parties. The whistleblower has something to hide, even though it is not unethical or immoral.

You are likely not a whistleblower, so you have nothing to hide, right? As stated before, you don't get to make the rules on what is and is not deemed unlawful. Anything you say or do could be used against you. Having a certain religion or viewpoint may be legal now, but if one day those become outlawed, you will have wished you hid it.

Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean it is justified to share everything. Privacy is a basic human right (at least until someone edits Wikipedia to say otherwise), so you shouldn't be forced to trust whoever just because you have nothing to hide.

For completeness, here is a proof that the "Nothing to hide" argument is a logical fallacy by using propositional calculus:

Let p be the proposition "I have nothing to hide"

Let q be the proposition "I should not be concerned about surveillance"

You can represent the "Nothing to hide" argument as follows:

p → q

I will be providing a proof by counterexample. Suppose p is true, but q is false (i.e. "I have nothing to hide" and "I am concerned about surveillance"):

p ∧ ¬q

Someone may have nothing to hide, but still be concerned about the state of surveillance. Since that is a viable scenario, we can conclude that the "Nothing to hide" argument is invalid (a logical fallacy).

I know someone is going to try to rip that proof apart. If anyone is an editor on Wikipedia, please revert the edit that removed the "logical fallacy" text, as it provides a very easy and direct way for people to cite that the "Nothing to hide" argument is false.

Thanks for reading!

- The 8232 Project

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I do agree with you point and opinion, but that "logical proof" is one of the worst I've read.

The "Nothing to Hide" argument could be restated that way:

Axioms: A1: Surveillance reveals hidden things A2: If I have something to hide, I would be concerned if it's revealed

Propositions p: I have something to hide q: I should be concerned about surveillance

We deduce from the axioms that p => q : "if I have something to hide I must be concerned about surveillance".

The logical fallacy of the nothing to hide is to deduce !p => !q : "If I have nothing to hide I should not fear surveillance". Which is a case of Denying the antecedent fallacy.

Another fallacy of the argument is that they suppose !p is true, which is a debunked fact.

What was wrong with your proof was that you used another human to disprove a fact about the first one. The I may not be switchable because the other human may not have the same axioms. Moreover, you statement was about "should" but if someone doesn't do something they only should do, it's not a contradiction

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

but that “logical proof” is one of the worst I’ve read.

😅 I'm not very experienced in proofs like these yet, as you can tell. Thank you for submitting your own proof, I greatly appreciate it!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

You're welcome :) to be honest it's my first for this as well 😂, but I do have experience with math.

The one thing that ticked me with your proof, was about your phrasing. You were trying to prove !(p=>q) i.e. p^!q by a counter example, but your wrote "suppose we have p^!q", which is already the thesis of the proof. So what you wrote is essentially "We will proof A is false. Suppose !A, then !A." which is not proving !A. What you should have done is to remove the "suppose" part and say if p=>q then if I nothing to hide I should not be concerned, but I can have nothing to hide and be concerned, which is a contradiction. Then your proof would be somewhat correct but my last two arguments still hold. The issue could be solved woth some modals or quantifiers to express the different people.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not that I disagree, but Wikipedia requires specific criteria for sources. I am not sure that a book about it being a logical fallacy meets that criteria any more than a book about parenting could be used to prove how to parent a child.

Are there other Wikipedia pages that claim things to be logical fallacies that could be used to see what the burden of proof is for this claim?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Are there other Wikipedia pages that claim things to be logical fallacies that could be used to see what the burden of proof is for this claim?

I'm not sure, but I found something interesting:

One of Wikipedia's examples of an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (a formal syllogistic fallacy) is as follows: We don't read that trash. People who read that trash don't appreciate real literature. Therefore, we appreciate real literature.

The "Nothing to hide" argument can be written in a similar way: "I have nothing to hide. People who have something to hide are concerned about surveillance. Therefor, I should not be concerned about surveillance."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think this is still not a citable claim. You link to the affirmative conclusion from a negative premise which includes that statement, but that page is explaining what that is. Your other page is using a claim to prove a different topic.

The problem is that Wikipedia is not where you prove things. You need to cite somewhere else that proves it, and you need to do it in an impartial way.

For example, saying that '"If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't fear surveillance from the state" is a logical fallacy' and citing the book makes Wikipedia have that stance.

But in contrast, you could say that 'Critics argue that the argument "If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't fear surveillance from the state" is a logical fallacy" then cite the book, this way the critic is the one with the opinion and not Wikipedia.

More citations of more critics would probably help too.

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia by any means, but I do see why someone may have considered this statement not belonging on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has some info here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Also see the links at the top of that page about "Verifiability" and "No Original Research" as these are the three key things needed to allow the statement.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Some may have nothing to hide, but still be concerned about the state of surveillance

This is where your proof falls apart. It follows from nothing you’ve established and relies on context outside of our proof, which does not work with propositional logic. Another commenter goes into a bit more detail with some pre-defined axioms; with the right axioms you can wave away anything. However you have to agree on your axioms to begin with (this is the foundation of things like non-Euclidean geometry; choose to accept normally unacceptable axioms).

A rigorous proof using propositional calculus would have to start with the definitions of what things are, what hiding means, what surveillance is, how it relates to hiding, and slowly work your way to showing, based on the definitions and lemmas you’ve built along the way, how this actually works. Understanding how to build arithmetic from the Peano Axioms is a good foundation.

However, by attempting to represent this conversation in formal logic, we fall prey to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, which means something beyond the axioms in our system has to be based on faith. This arguably leads us back to the beginning, where “nothing to hide” and “state surveillance” fall under personal preference.

Please note that I think “nothing to hide” is bullshit always and do not support heavy surveillance. I like the discussion you’ve started.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sure you can always infinitely define what is behind but I don't think it is relevant here or you couldn't do any moral logic.

The two axioms I assumed are A1 a proven fact and A2 the very defintion of having something to hide. It is enough for this specific problem.

I don't see how Gödel's theorems are useful since they say that a given system of actions is either incomplete or inconsistent. With these two axioms it's hardly inconsistent and we don't care about it being incomplete since we only have one theorem to prove

[+] [email protected] -6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is some BS. What the OP haplessly tries to say is simply modus ponens. What Gödel are you talking about.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’m not sure how you prove by negation in this case just via modus ponens. Care to enlighten me? I opened with something that doesn’t follow so that would be a great place to start.

Give me a consistent formal system with a list of theorems to prove OP’s conjecture and I’ll show you how we have gaps in the system. My analytic philosophy is pretty rusty; I think there are a few 20th century folks you can start from for this.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In modus ponens you have four cases:

	A	B	A -> B
a	0	0	TRUE
b	0	1	TRUE
c	1	0	FALSE
d	1	1	TRUE

Here, A is "Having sth to hide", and B "Caring about encryption". Obviously case b says that although people having something to hide seek out encrypted methods of communication, it is logically accepted that there might be other reasons, even unknown. A more silly example is this: the grass is wet does not necessarily means it has rained. There might be other reasons. But this does not mean that rain does not make the grass wet.

To sum up, the OP could have just said that. It does not change anything anyway. You can't beat a propaganda apparatus with this "fallacy talk".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You made the same leap that OP did.

[I]t is logically accepted that there might be other reasons, even unknown.

No, it’s not. That’s what I’m calling out. This doesn’t follow from A or B and requires further definition. While you’re using to explain case b, OP tried to use it to explain case c. In both cases, you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life. That’s where my ask for a consistent formal system comes from.

In your case b, we have not(I have something to hide) and (I am not concerned about surveillance). Since OP is not saying that the two are necessary and sufficient, we don’t really care. However, in your case c, where we have I have nothing to hide and not(I am not concerned about surveillance), both of you say we are logically allowed to force that to make sense. It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be; it has not come from within our proof or our formal system. We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen. Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.

If you’ll notice my last paragraph in my first post basically says the same thing your last paragraph says.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

[+] [email protected] -7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be

How so?

Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.

It is rather that the fact that people who do have something to hide will probably use encryption cannot be refuted by an instance of someone using encryption without having something to hide.

We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen.

This is textbook modus ponens, sorry if you find that disturbing.

you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life

This is unproductive and eventually relativistic. I can't fathom how you dare bring advanced topics of math/logic fundamentals in a discussion like this. We are talking the kind of stuff that takes 200 pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2, and why it is not correct, or absolute. What is the purpose of that level of meta in a discussion about flipping privacy?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How so?

OP said that, given A and B, they would prove A -> B via negation, meaning the truth table you built does not yet exist and must be proved.

It is rather…

OP is not trying to use language, OP is trying to use propositional calculus. Using language unattached to propositional calculus is meaningless in this context.

This is textbook modus ponens

No, it’s not. Textbook modus ponens is when you are given A -> B. We are given A and B and are trying to prove A -> B. Never in any of my reading have I ever seen someone say “We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.” I mean, had I graded symbolic logic papers, I probably would have because it’s a textbook mistake to write a proof that just has the conclusion with none of the work. As the in group, we may assume A -> B in this situation; OP was taking some new tools they’ve picked up and applying them to something OP appears passionate about to prove our assumptions.

how dare you

I was responding to OP. Why are you getting mad at me instead of getting mad at OP? OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea. You have proven my point incredibly well.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.

Still failing to see that we aren't proving A -> B, but getting its truth value within a proof.

OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea.

I think your goal was the equivalent of what any postmodernist does in deconstructing any given field:

"Nothing is real"
"you can't prove the first axioms within the system"
"it is all in the historical context"
"No truth statements are possible"

By the same coin, all the other logical fallacies go out of the window, together with boolean logic and what have you. Even the valid ones.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Still failing…

Reread OP. All you did was provide a truth table that is necessary but not sufficient. Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.

You postmodernist you

Now this is a logical fallacy. While many might agree it’s a proper response to Quine or Kripke, I think it’s just kinda sad. Good luck!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

[+] [email protected] -7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Quine is the most sane person among your lot. And righteously followed by Thomas Kuhn.

Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.

That was never the task at hand. You are projecting your belief system so hard you cannot even parse the arguments at a functional level. Yet, after an hour or so, suddenly 4 more vote me down, and only in this particular thread. (Since the rest of the comments in the whole post are unaffected, even mine? What the fuck did you go to your philosophy of science SimpleX chat and called for back up?

Pathetic.

For the last time The truth table does not mean that A->B is "proven". Obviously you have never done propositional calculus on pen and paper, because this misconception is literally worse than OP's ravings.

You postmodernist you

I stand by the comment. Bringing up Gödel in polite conversation should go straight to the site-wide banable offenses.

Good luck!

This attempt to patronize is futile. You proved you were in bad faith, and I wish not to continue this discussion.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You didn’t read OP, regularly refused back anything up, and came in with ad hominem. When others vote in a way that disagrees with you, you claim a conspiracy. I think the only person here acting in bad faith is you. I have tried to expand OP’s understanding of their proposal and you have only attacked people. You have attempted to insult me multiple times. Granted, I did take a swipe at you begging the question, so you could argue some bad faith was merited, but you saying I’ve never done logic while missing me explaining to you the point you’re suddenly trying to make (“necessary but not sufficient”) continues the poor student metaphor.

I’m sorry you found “good luck” to be patronizing. Does “have fun” work?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

From your source, we must first have P -> Q. You have not demonstrated that. Sure, if we assume that P -> Q, then P -> Q. That’s a tautology. OP’s goal is to prove P -> Q. I’ve said this multiple times as did OP. Your consistent sharing of a truth table is a necessary condition for P -> Q but it is not sufficient. If P -> Q, then the truth table is valid. That’s modus ponens. You still gotta show (or assume like you have been) that P -> Q.

To quote OP,

P -> Q

I will be providing a proof by counterexample

In other words, P -> Q is an unproven hypothesis. If P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. If we assume P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. But propositional calculus unfortunately requires we prove things, not just show things that will be true if our original assumption is true.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

With all due respect, get your head out of your arse and read this from what I posted:

While modus ponens is one of the most commonly used argument forms in logic it must not be mistaken for a logical law; rather, it is one of the accepted mechanisms for the construction of deductive proofs that includes the "rule of definition" and the "rule of substitution".

Emphasis is mine. I cannot scream hard enough to get this simple message across to your flipping head. You are reading it wrong, and if you had done one class of prepositional calculus you would have known, therefore you haven't.

As for your foundationalist pursuits, most of science advances without getting back to the foundations, just as calculus was in practical use long before it was formally proven. So you see a person (OP) struggling with basic conception and composition of his argument, let alone the formal expression, and you raise the bar to the level of logical foundations of mathematics? If not dishonest, this is utterly unproductive.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure! Let’s go back to foundations. The foundation of modus ponens is, quoting your source,

If P -> Q and P, then Q

In order for this to work, we must have both P -> Q and P. Will you please quote OP that shows we have P -> Q, as I have asked from the beginning, instead of making personal attacks? Alternatively, if I’m missing something in my foundations, such as “P -> Q can always be assumed in any basic symbolic context without proof,” educate me. As you have bolded, we can use modus ponens if and only if (necessary and sufficient) we have its requirements. If we don’t, per your source, we cannot use it to prove anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No one is attempting to prove bleeding P->Q here.

If P -> Q and P, then Q

Sure, and when ~P^Q, then P->Q is still not false, and you can further use it in a proof, in the context of other given statements.

This was never presented as a method to show that P->Q, which arguably can only be shown with data.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

other given statements

Perhaps this is our fundamental misunderstanding! I am operating under these statements

P: I have nothing to hide Q: I should not be concerned about surveillance

In my opinion, everything after this is OP’s proof, ie we have no given statements ergo you calling out modus ponens is meaningless because, from our foundations, we could theoretically have ~P^Q, P^~Q, ~P^~Q, and P^Q. Our foundation provides no context on how P and Q interact, and, as both of us state, albeit for different reasons, we cannot conclude anything about their interaction.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

people are missing the mark; the "not hiding" is an imposed narrative, a straw man argument and a false dichotomy, all in one.

the issue is not whether you have or don't something to hide, as this "hide" part implies something inherently sinister. the issue is you being forced to share stuff you haven't decided to do so.

when I'm not sharing the quality of my morning's stool across all my social media outlets, it's not something I'm hiding, it's something I haven't decided on sharing with the public. consequently, I don't allow my software, hardware, service provider, government, or whoever-the-fuck to do it for me.

so what this false equivalency is doing is moving the onus from the evildoer to me, forcing me to explain why I don't like what this fucker is doing. fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Pregnancy, abortion seeking, sexual orientation of clergy, being trans, all have become matter of life and death level reasons for caring about privacy.

Ah, another one: insurance company might profile you as XYZ subcategory and discriminate against you.

"Yes but you know what data brokers are hiding from you?" I haven't tried this one, but I will.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Here's a little experiment: next time you hear someone defends surveillance because they have nothing to hide ask them if you can have a look through their chat and browser history. Most likely they'll reply "that's private" and maybe after some time they will understand.

That's of course by far not the only argument for privacy but it has a certain effect with most people

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The issue that arises from this approach, as I've found, is that people have something to hide from you, but not the government/large corporations. When they feel as if they are in a pool, they feel less important compared to being singled out by you.

You could instead do something similar: "Why does the FBI need to know what color of underwear you wear?" etc. to help them realize that surveillance goes much deeper than they realize, and not everything is relevant information.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

yep. I use that argument sometimes , but it really depends on the person whether the "then give me your email/chat history/etc." argumeng will work.

and just like you said, people don't you reading it. They wouldn't want to see you looking through their phone. But in the context of technology, it's very abstract. Like, when Instagram's chats weren't encrypted, telling someone "Instagram can read them" may sound vague. They don't imagine how like, Meta employees maybe could have access to it, or the softwares behind it that could analyze their chats. that could all be happening, but "out of sight, out of mind!" really helps people tolerate those possibilities. Thhe frontend, the chat interface, looks OK, so yeah.

I don't think I could explain it very well, so my bad (not a native speaker), but yeah, I feel like because we are not encoruaged to think about how the software works behind the curtains, it's easy to assume that "well, I'm not a target, so why should I worry about doing this [privacy thing]?"

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

I usually respond to the phrase "I've nothing to hide" with the request to then provide me with the checking account number, the medical history, to let me read the email and chats, to tell me when you are going to be on vacation and the home. empty..... these are exactly the things that these pages collect to sell. We don't allow it in real life either, let alone online.

Surveillance advertising is a crime, period.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Nothing to hide...my answer to that is: "Then why do you close your curtains at night if you have nothing to hide..?"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I've asked those people "why do you lock the toilet door?"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

My favorite response to that currently is "Okay, send me your email password and show me all your credit cards. Oh, why not? You've done nothing wrong, so you have nothing to hide, right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

"Ok, so would you send me nudes? I'm not looking at them, I would just like to have them."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

A logical fallacy is a specific technical term pointing to an issue with the logic itself. What you are accurately pointing out is the missing information and hidden premises. In other words, you are finding issue with the facts, not the logic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Nothing to hide? Okay, send pic of your bussy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

No need to make things complicated. I'm from Brazil and I live everyday the consequences of having our data exposed out there by mismanagement and abuse:

There are criminals out there using our data in several ways, like extorting money, taking banking loans in your name, using your credit card online, etc etc etc. We can't rest in peace

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I know nothing about Wikipedia drama, but the term "logical fallacy" usually indicates a reasoning pattern and does not apply to specific arguments, regardless of how fallacious they may happen be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I would add to the conversation with the questions;

Should all information be known? Just because something doesn't need to be hidden doesn't imply that it should be known broadly. It's not okay for somebody to know what color underwear I'm wearing right now.

Is all information equal in value? Presuming one kind of data point is okay to be public does not mean that all data points are okay to be public. My address is public record (unfortunately) but that doesn't mean my social security number, ID number, and passport number should be public as well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

I would add to the conversation with the questions;

I love fostering discussions, and I'm glad to see you do too!

Should all information be known?

Obviously nothing good can come if we all turn into the Borg. However, the question becomes more interesting when you consider different people. Should all of your information be known? No, obviously not. Should all of the CIA's information (besides the personal information of others) be known?

Is all information equal in value?

My previous counter question assumes that no, not all information is of equal value. However, even if the value of information differs, your ability to control if that information is shared should not be diminished.

I had a boss that would remember everything you told to them, and would make incomplete assumptions about it. If you told them you liked dogs, they would assume dogs are your favorite animal. If you told them you got scratched by a cat, they would assume you absolutely hate cats. In this context, "mundane" information such as my personal preferences (favorite animal, etc.) is not something I would want to share with my boss, since nothing good comes from it. Even though the information has "less value," the value of it was raised depending on who I told.

Your social security number is high value to say, your neighbor, but not necessarily the DMV. CIA documents may be high value against other countries, but it might be worth making it available to national citizens. So, information itself does not have a set value above any other piece of information, but it does have differing value depending on who you share it with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

The "Nothing to hide" argument isn't really an argument, it's more of a conclusion. That conclusion is then taken to support mass surveillance. It's also not a logical fallacy (even if it's wrong). It may be "proven" using logical fallacies, but that doesn't make it a logical fallacy on its own. So I think it's correct to remove the logical fallacy text.

I think the more effective defense against this one is to provide counterexamples for why you might care about mass surveillance:

People do have something to hide. E.g. browser history, religious/political beliefs, etc...
You may not have something to hide now, but in the future you may wish it was still hidden. You can't unpublish information these days.
People you care about may have something to hide, and not caring about mass surveillance puts them at risk.
Relatively harmless individual datapoints can be combined to create harmful datasets that allow for mass exploitation.
Governments may abuse mass surveillance, whereby you may experience negative effects from journalists/political dissidents being silenced
Etc...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Nobody's business that I've got nothing to hide.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Something like a joke about this:

If you're working on something genius great, no matter who's watching you, they won't understand anything, but if you're doing ordinary things, it's really not that important that someone is watching.

But of course, annoying comprehensive surveillance, especially from commercial companies, certainly should not be justified.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Nothing to hide if no one is willing to exploit

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

What are you? Privacy expert?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago

It is widespread propaganda to make everyone who uses private and encrypted tooling as potential criminals. Encrypted chat is not sth clean cut kids do. Simple as that. It is a pushed narrative by those who don't want encryption.

Everytime a superficial opinion is so strong that is robust to constant debunking and perpetually reprises, it is typically a propaganda apparatus at play.

Having said that, your attempt to appeal to logic is utterly futile, and also in this particular instance, done badly. Mostly because of the imbalanced and non-sequitur rendering the text unintelligible.