“If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"
Eric Schmidt - Google CEO in 2009

The "nothing to hide" argument rests on a premise as simple as it is flawed: that the value of privacy lies exclusively in its ability to conceal discreditable information. If you don't have skeletons in your closet, logic would suggest that transparency cannot harm you.

This view, however, betrays a profound misunderstanding of the nature and function of privacy in a complex society and is a view that, as legal scholar Daniel J. Solove has masterfully argued, ignores the vast taxonomy of harms that surveillance can inflict, even on those who are perfectly "innocent".

Solove invites us to move beyond the metaphor of hiding and to consider privacy through a structural lens, as the harms almost never arise from the simple revelation of a single embarrassing secret, but from more subtle and pervasive processes.

Among these, Solove first identifies information aggregation: even if every single piece of data (an online search, a purchase, a geolocation) is harmless in itself, their combination creates a detailed profile, a "digital dossier" of unprecedented power.

Beyond simple aggregation, Solove identifies other subtle but significant harms:

  • Exclusion: Information can be used to prevent people from accessing services or opportunities without them ever knowing why they were excluded.

  • Secondary Use: Data collected for one purpose (e.g., a customer loyalty program) can be used for a completely different purpose (e.g., a credit score assessment) without the individual's consent or knowledge.

  • Distortion: Digital profiles create a simplified, often inaccurate caricature of a person, which can lead to unfair judgments."

To these harms is added a pervasive psychological effect: the so-called chilling effect, the well-known phenomenon whereby the awareness of being constantly watched changes our behavior.

For example, a student might avoid researching controversial political topics for a school project, or a person might hesitate to seek online information about a sensitive health condition, fearing how that data could be interpreted and used against them later. This self-censorship starves both personal growth and public discourse.

Surveillance does not just record reality; it shapes it, encouraging self-censorship and inhibiting the creativity, criticism, and dissent that are the lifeblood of a democratic society.

Ultimately, the "nothing to hide" argument collapses because it is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of what privacy protects. It is a logic that not only inverts a historical call for collective self-governance into a justification for individual submission, but also ignores the real, structural harms of modern surveillance.

Edward Snowden’s analogy provides the most powerful rebuttal, reframing the entire debate:

“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.”

Like free speech, privacy is not a right you must justify using. It is a foundational principle that creates the essential space for a free, authentic, and dynamic society to exist in the first place.

References