Introduction
Privacy in the digital age is a subject of constant public policy debates. While proponents argue that protecting this right would uphold issues of physician-patient confidentiality, business secrets, and whistleblowing inherent in a democracy, opponents contend that it can be sacrificed for security. This section of the paper critiques a research article exploring the arguments for and against the nothing to hide claim and its foundational flaws.
Author’s Main Ideas
The first article’s goal is to explore the “nothing to hide” argument in the context of privacy conceptions. The problem addressed is that this claim is anchored in misconceptions about privacy. In part one, Solove (2007) introduces the events of September 11, 2001, which triggered a new wave of secret federal surveillance ostensibly to guard against terrorism. In their aftermath, personal data mining by wiretapping suspects’ phone calls through a federal project (Total Information Awareness) gained prominence in an attempt to thwart future attacks. According to Solove (2007), the post-September 11 era also saw the U.S. government begin tracking bank transactions globally to stop terrorism financing. Despite the implications of these developments for privacy, most people dismiss them, claiming that they have nothing to hide.
In the second part of the article, the author examines the “nothing to hide” idea that has dominated public discourses more deeply. However, everyone, including those making this claim, would want to protect the intimate side of their lives. A counterargument is that people engaged in illegal activity lose the right to keep such pursuits private. In the third part, the author explores privacy as a concept and its philosophical underpinnings. Solove (2007) distinguishes a traditional conceptualization approach that sees privacy as “intimate information, access, and decisions” (p. 755). However, this method is too narrow to capture all aspects of this concept. A broader view of privacy encompasses different conceptions extending beyond intimacy.
The final part of the article discusses the arguments against the “nothing to hide” perspective. Solove (2007) notes that a major flaw of this viewpoint is viewing privacy as a “form of concealment or secrecy” (p. 763). However, government programs that access data from third parties and use them without oversight infringe on fundamental civil liberties. Another problem is the inability to quantify deterred behavior due to surveillance. People are also not aware of how their data are being used, and cannot access or amend personal information once collected. Finally, secondary use of data for other unintended purposes portends another danger. Solove’s (2007) taxonomy of privacy outlines problems associated with data collection, processing, dissemination, and invasion and gives a basis for comprehending different facets of this issue. He concludes that viewed from the specific flaws identified in his framework, the “nothing to hide” argument lacks potency.
Interpretation of Procedures
The author’s purpose is clear in the introduction: exploring the “nothing to hide” argument more deeply. The article presents an organized and incisive analysis of the issue beginning with the dominant view in popular discourses. In the first part, the author builds a cogent background to the problem, examining how the post-September 11 era led to warrantless wiretapping and mining of sensitive data that continue to this day. This element of the analytic procedure proves his deep understanding of the subject. He conducts in-depth research to identify material supporting his claims. In the first section and throughout the article, the researcher uses reports and commentaries on government surveillance activities in American popular media. The information from mainstream sources, such as USA Today and The New York Times, is the subject of analysis in this article. Generally, these reports can be considered authoritative and reliable if the source is verified.
To give a historical perspective to the “nothing to hide” argument, the author includes excerpts from novels and novellas, such as Traps. The ideas in this fictional works help deconstruct this claim by illustrating how everyone has intimate aspects of personal life that need protection. The author also relies on the responses to the “nothing to hide” claim posted by readers in his blog, Concurring Opinions. Verbatim user comments by bloggers are included in the article help illustrate the analytic components of the article’s findings.
The approach also gives the human story underlying the author’s observations. Solove (2007) uses quotations wisely to prove the overwhelming public disdain for the argument. He shifts between generalized observations and compelling utterances s to give insight into privacy conceptions. This procedure helped enrich the knowledge of the “nothing to hide claim” and privacy. However, the anecdotes quoted from blogs, though evocative, may not be factual unless the author conducts the interviews or surveys using a validated instrument. In this article, no attempts were made to obtain qualitative data for analysis but only used secondary information was used.
The author also consults data security, privacy experts, and court judgments to illustrate his main argument. Their assertions help develop a coherent discourse about privacy and the growing concern over the government’s unfettered access to information deemed private. In conceptualizing privacy and analyzing its social value, the author uses common theories, including those by Charles Fried and John Dewey. Spontaneous reference to the useful frameworks helped contextualize the analysis for the reader to understand it better. A major drawback identified in the article is that the argument seemed unbalanced – opinions often involve bias. The views of the “nothing to hide” proponents (mainly government officials) were limited. Including their perspectives would have added objectivity and fairness to the analysis.
Data Analysis Strategies
The article involved a qualitative analysis of different information, including primary and secondary data. Analyzing and mining blog reader comments and expert opinions was the main approach used. The author collected these primary data and used it to provide a narrative analysis of the “nothing to hide” argument. Although it is not stated, the thematic analysis must have been employed in identifying key themes around which the article is organized. However, the varied formats of the qualitative information require a structured approach (repeated reading, coding, and inductive development of themes) to discover meanings but this procedure is not apparent in this article.
The author includes moves back and forth between verbatim comments or reports and his claims. The wisely used excerpts of verbal accounts help lend credence to his arguments throughout the article. However, the author does not indicate the number of comments or expert opinions obtained; thus, the extent to which all qualitative data collected were utilized in the synthesis is not clear. Further, in the second part where the author explores the “nothing to hide argument”, the article includes a series of verbatim quotation excerpts with minimal explanation. Thus, the ideas being communicated were lost due to the overdoing of the quotes.
The secondary analysis was the predominant approach used in this article. Diverse reports from newspapers, Supreme Court rulings, agency webpages, and technical reports form the bulk of the information sources. A narrative integrated presentation of their findings is used to support each argument. However, the author does not detail the methods employed to analyze the secondary data nor the strategies utilized to increase methodological rigor in the research.
Conclusion/Recommendation
The article reviewed focuss on privacy of personal data under government control. The security of the information stored in public databases is under threat from increased access by government officials. A dismissive attitude dominating public discourses is the “nothing to hide” claim. The article is a rebuttal of this argument that reveals its inherent flaws and builds a strong counterargument based on the lack of oversight over federal use of data and potential information misuse. Ensuring individual rights to data in the hands of government is recommended as away of dealing with inappropriate use of such information.
Reference
Solove, D. J. (2007). “I’ve got nothing to hide” and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Review, 44, 745-772. Web.