NO2ID

Sorry, that should have read '...it's about how much you value YOUR privacy'...

Thanks, Carpe Noctum and Antony - all added.

I partially agree with Antony's point that this isn't just wordplay. It is certainly important. But I think it is partly wordplay because NTH/NTF is partly wordplay; it's a blurt which conceals a lot underneath. If we can find a response that strips the blurt of its power without having to laboriously address everything underneath then we will have done well. In a few days I'll review the list we are coming up with and see if there are patterns there.

In the meantime, more suggestions please: what's the first thing you say if someone says "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear"?

OK maybe something like. "Did you think of that yourself?"

It's a simple question; it really is very simple indeed but could be at the same time very problematic to answer for some people, especially the ones who use the nothing to hide remark. If they answer "no but I agree with it" then ask them why. You will find the typical response after that starting to dig a hole for them because they can't just leave these questions unanswered, as it makes them feel stupid.

The attack is on their own willingness to believe anything they hear, so you need to get them to question this. I always try and go to the core of the problem rather than argue about something that is easy for them, like something that they can say, "well that's just your opinion". Oh how I hate that response, I guess they get taught that one as well at brainwashing school.

Actually I get this kind of thing a lot with officials and I simply don't stand for their tricks anymore. A lot of people are trained to deal with people who are trying to raise an issue using professional brush-off techniques. When these are used against me my response is usually to start getting extremely angry with them in that I take such a brush off as a personal insult and force them to retract it. Usually the force of rebuttal scares them into submission as I play their boss for them. You see their brainwashing is also about respecting authority so never play the part of their punter and always use the kind of body language which makes them listen to you. Seriously with a big enough shock you can wake these people up but you can't wake someone up by whispering to them, you have to be a bit more forceful psychologically. Like clearing a blockage in a drain. Once clear the drain will function quite ok for a good long while.

Well, it isn't as snappy as some of the suggestions so far, but at the moment I'm road-testing variations on this response:

"You're an honest person, and of course you have nothing to hide from other honest people - but what about the dishonest ones? What about career criminals intent on theft and fraud - are you happy for them to know all about you? Where you live? Where you work? Which bank you use? Your medical history? Where your children go to school?"

Results so far have been promising ...

Nice one John!

"NTHNTF" x "Thinkofthechildrunnn" = overload. Should shut the sheeple up while they get their limited brain capacities around that little conundrum.

Yes, that would work well in a speech too. Do a show of hands to identify the nothing-to-hiders, get a volunteer, and then ask them questions until they get so uncomfortable they stop answering: name, address, date of birth, mother's maiden name, credit card number, security code, PIN...

I think for this you'd need to have a list of things that are perhaps private, but not *secret* - name, place and date of birth (NB don't call it "birthday"), their employer (not "who you work for") and job title might fit here. The wording is important to give the difference between simply asking a question and gathering information but this approach gives them the opportunity to say "why should I tell you" and as an individual (not an official form) you can't justify that. Of course if they've stood up in a meeting and made their declaration then they have put themselves on the spot.

If they seem to lean towards the 'protecting identity' side, perhaps also suggest that all those 'nothing to hide' people (e.g. on those 'look at me me me' social sites) are half the reason that identity theft is on the increase, what with them being the easiest targets for it.

OK, this one might cause their brains to hang in one of those infinite loops.

"Who inspects the inspectors?"

There's always the powerful:

"Innocence is no protection ..."

followed by - take your pick:

"... just ask the surviving relatives of those who were murdered in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Dachau."

"... just ask the young Buddhist monks who are being punished for their democracy protests in Burma."

etc.

Quote Hitler ' What luck for rulers that men don't think.'

Nothing to hide
Nothing to fear
My familys privacy
Isn't so dear

"Would you give someone you don't know your birth certificate or driving licence (or relevant document) to look after?"

Whether answer is yes or no (its usually no),

"Would you be happy to ask that someone for permission to use your driving licence every time you have to prove who you are?"

Not wanting to divert on to other issues, something that struck me today - three weeks ago, a seventeen-year-old smoker had nothing to hide. It's another one that rather depends on the audience though, but may be enough (and sufficiently short) to make the point that "nothing" today can so easily be "something" tomorrow.

Hence my preferred responses of "how do you mean?", "nothing in what sense?" etc etc

I'd like to hide my daughters details from Paedophiles because I fear for her
I'd like to hide my bank details from thieves
I'd like to hide my medical records from you for fear they may embarrass me
I'd like to hide whatever I like from the untrustworthy or corrupt

Much like government I would like to hide sensitive information for security.

OK, I promised to collect and digest the responses, so here goes. Apologies if I haven't done the groupings quite the way you might have done, it's all just to help the debate move forward.
I thought the comebacks grouped quite well under the following headings:

Jolt their complacency
Everybody has something to hide
Dangers of being too trusting
Right to privacy
Political implications

Here is the full list. Ignore all the annoying "wrote"s added by the forum software...






If there is a single heading that might cover the entire list, I think it's "Dangers of being too trusting". The fact that not everybody has our interests at heart is why we all have something to hide, and fear. Perhaps that goes to the root of it.

In my experience, a lot of people who use the phrase 'Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear' phrase, also use the word 'crime'/'criminal' at some point in their pro-argument.

A possible way to counter this is to give some examples of law changes that would make a lot of people criminals,

e.g.
making a joke about the PM or government
or
meeting in groups of more than three.

Maybe look up some [harsh] laws that people in other countries have been executed for breaking, freedoms that we take for granted while others on the same planet can't afford to.

It's kind of the diplomatic 'ok, you may trust this government, but what about the next, and the one after that...' line of thought [i know a lot of pro-Labour people, so it pays to be diplomatic]

Actually, doing that (in fact groups of more than one!) and failing to disperse and leave the area when ordered by a constable who deems them threatening is already illegal in most police divisions of central London, all of the ones I know in the West End having already been declared to be Dispersal Zones under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.

People who haven't been paying attention in the last 10 years are likely to get some nasty shocks some time.

Yes and notice another thing. All these new laws are brought in and they sit on the statute books doing not a lot. Of course they don't want to overuse all of these new laws right now or it might cause alarm, instead they want to keep piling them on that book as fast as possible, even when some new laws seem to be unnecessary due to existing laws. One day they will have what they call a zero tolerance policy and that is when people will notice.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear....

"Then remind me never to tell YOU anything in confidence..." See how the like that one.

When I hear poeple use that lazy, throw away line, I say that they must trust the gov't so much that they should never ever again criticise this or any future administration with regards to trustworthiness.

Ahhh...see, I thought it was a loitering law that hadn't been changed since 18th century (or similar). It's even more worrying to know that it's a very recent Act.

Cheers Guy.

I'm new. I've joined because my DNA, fingerprints and retinas etc are exactly that, mine, and no one elses damn business. When the day comes that they want me to give samples I'm leaving and never coming back this place wont be home anymore.

Yup, if you gather in a group of more than one then the 2003 act applies. If you're on your own then the loitering law applies. Good here innit?

This may be new, or it may be stale, but it's worth the read:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=998565

In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument.