I’m indebted to William van Zwanenberg, who has provided such a detailed and extensive comment on yesterday’s “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear” (NTHNTF) article that is merits a blog entry in its own right. William’s piece is below – many thanks indeed!
One of the more cogent and coherrant exposes on the “NTHNTF” myth.
One of my chief concerns (and I have many) regarding the emergence of what Guy Herbert from the campaign group NO2ID calls, “The Database State”, is that its development is inextricably linked to with notion that as good citizen’s we should be required – indeed expected – to constantly proove: (a) that we we’re good – i.e., that we behaving in a socially acceptable and socially endorsed manner and (b) that whatever we may ask for from the state, we are in fact entitled to ask for it.
That is, that we must first proove our entitlement. Only by constantly monitoring us, under a constantly operating regime of surveilance may we achieve this and in the process, weed out those who aren’t entitled and those are are deviant and dangerous to society.
Such a view profoundly confuses the distinction between entitlement and privacy and is symptomatic of the move towards to emeregence of a totalitarian state. It is my view my view that we in the west are already well on the way to a new form of post-modern totalitarian state (what Guy Herbert calls ‘soft fascism’) in which behaviour and opinions which are disapproved of by the political class are pathologised and then regulated by violence-backed laws “for your own good’ or “for the children” or “for the environment. The emeregence of the surveilance state is simply the icing on the cake if you like of the development of an infrastucture designed to orchestrate social control. Resonating strongly with the warnings Orwell extols in his book 1984, it’s obvious how the more information you have about citizens, the more you can control what they see, hear, think and ultimately do.
What’s essential, somehow, is to get across the idea that you are entitled to be anonymous in going about your lawful business. I think that this is close to being a fundamental principle of a free society under the rule of law: because we ought to be treated equally in equal circumstances, an enquiry into who you are ought to be considered unacepptable in any casual transaction because it ought to be irrelevant.
Compare those rules in effect forbidding employers from asking female candidates at interview about their plans for children. Because the inquiry implies a discrimination on grounds of personal characteristics that it is thought ought to be irrelevant, it is barred.
The very fact of formal inquiry as to your identity – rather than the relevant characteristic – implies that we are not equal before the law and places you in the position of a personal supplicant, not a customer or equal citizen.
Beyond the reasons already articulated, one can easily think of persons who do have aspects about themsleves that they would arguble have completely legitimate reasons for wanting to keep secret. To give but a few examples:
1) People with “socially unnacceptable” illnesses who would not want that information shared outside professional medical contacts.
2) People fleeing domestic violence who do not wish to be traced.
3) “Spent” criminal convictions – although that’s already largely redundant. Very little is spent these days.
4) People who do not want their living arrangements made ‘public’ (ie. people living alone would become increasingly vulnerable).
5) journalists protecting sources who are uncovering corruption
6) political activists may wish to hide sensitive personal information from the govt that might be used against them
7) scientists who perform experiments on animals who may wish to hide their details from militant animal rights activists
8) some people may be wary of publicising their religion lest they get persecuted for it.
Do the innocent really have *nothing* to hide? What about their sexual acitvities? Bank details? Medical records?
If someone says the blighted phrase to me…my usual reply is: “Then you won’t mind me comming round to to your house to search through your bedroom draws after which I’ll then install a CCTV camera in every room in your house.” After all, you’ve said you have nothing to hide!
We are, of course, fighting for the principles – presumption of innocence / right to privacy – but I have found that some ‘nothing to hide’ folk can be made to think twice when you point out how easily they could become a suspect in a database state. As easily, say, as getting a letter addressed to the wrong person at your home address – and who’s not experienced that at some point?
Wihtin the database state, it’s not what whether you think you’ve done something wrong, it’s whether *they* think you’ve done something wrong. And if they control your identity, how are you going to prove your innocence – when it’s your ID that will have drawn you to their attention in the first place?
You may have been pulled in because you were tracked to a certain place at a certain time (Gordon Brown’s sharing of retail data with the police…), or because your behaviour fits a ‘profile’ or deviates from some definition of ‘normal’. Or because the technology simply isn’t up to matching amongst 50 million fingerprints, and the police will – despite all assurances – be allowed to go on ‘fishing expeditions’. How many Shirley McKies will it take to explode the fingerprinting myth?
‘Nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ cuts right to the heart of civil liberties – those things which protect us from the arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities. There is nothing more arbitrary than assigning a person an official identity and then treating them as nothing more than a number, or piece of data to be matched.
The assertion that “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is no different from saying “if you’re not with us, you’re a supporter of the terrorists”. How best to put this across? Would a simple statement to that effect be enough? It splits everybody into either “innocent” or “guilty” (by which jury?) with no consideration for “not under suspicion” or “never even accused”.
The difficulty is with constructing a similar enough (and short!) false dichotomy which whilst potentially plausible at an extreme, shows unequivocally that the argument of ‘nth-ntf’ holds no value.
The argument is a particular species of false dichotomy. You are presented with a simple either/or choice. Either you?re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice.
The most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures – is this line: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?” Well the answer, as I hope I’ve been amble to demonstrate, is “everything.”
Here follows some clever answers to the aformentioned question:
“If I’m not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.”
“Because the government gets to define what is unacceptable behaviour, and not you or anyone else.”
“Because you might do something mistakenly with my information.”
My problem with quips like these answers – as right as they are – is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It’s not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.” Watch someone long enough, and you’ll find something to arrest – or just blackmail with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies – whoever they happen to be at the time.
Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.
We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.
A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day and yet as a nation there are more CCTV cameras here than anywhere else in the world. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It’s intrinsic to the concept of liberty.
For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that either now or in the uncertain future patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.
How many of us have paused during conversation in the recent past since 9/11, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.
This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And it’s our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as “security versus privacy.” The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that’s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.