Pointed out that the idea that ``you don't need to hide if you are not doing bad things'' is a mistake in terms of privacy issues

When it comes to government surveillance measures, some people say, 'I have nothing to hide,' and accept government surveillance as it is, saying, 'Unless illegal activity is discovered, there is no threat to privacy.' Some people think so. Daniel Solov of the George Washington University Law School considers what kind of problems there are in these ideas.

'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy by Daniel J. Solove :: SSRN


Mr. Solov published this observation in 2007, when the government began large-scale surveillance and data mining in the wake of

the September 11 terrorist attacks . Regarding surveillance, the New York Times reported in December 2005 that 'Since September 11th, the Bush administration has surreptitiously authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap American citizens' telephones without a warrant. As for data mining, a report in 2002 revealed that the Department of Defense had built a data mining project called 'Total Information Awareness (TIA)'.

Public backlash after the TIA came to light has prompted the Senate to vote on whether to reject funding for the program. However, Solov points out that many components of TIA continue to exist in various government agencies. For example, USA Today reported that the NSA has obtained customer records from several major phone companies and is analyzing them to identify potential terrorists. It had access to trade association bank records.'

Many people were outraged by the announcement, but he pointed out that many thought that Mr. Solov ``didn't have much of a problem''. He speculates that these people think that 'there's nothing to hide,' and points out that people who think this way about privacy issues are quite common.

An extreme interpretation of the above assertion would be to settle for the sentence, ``I don't care if the information used by the government to deter terrorism or prevent crime is known''. Those who make the above claims do not plan terrorism or crime themselves, so they think that there is no problem if only this kind of information is known.

``These people think that ``privacy'' means ``bad things,'' and ``protecting privacy'' means ``hiding bad things,'' Solov said. On the other hand, many opponents of the 'nothing to hide' theory interpret 'privacy' as 'all information about an individual,' which creates a discrepancy between the two, Solov points out. I'm here.

For this reason, Mr. Solov said, ``When discussing privacy issues, we often misinterpret each other.The claim that there is nothing to hide is valid for some issues. , is not valid for other issues.This argument ignores the evils of government surveillance and data mining projects, but claims in extreme interpretations can not be countered by opponents.Besides surveillance and information disclosure, , when faced with the multiple privacy issues inherent in government data collection and use.'

in Posted by log1p_kr