In modern day society, everybody is watched and scrutinised, even when we are unaware of it. Currently, Britain is thought to be a ‘surveillance society’ by using technology to monitor the actions of the population by using more than 6 million CCTV cameras (Daily Mail, 2016). In support of mass surveillance, the ‘if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear’ argument is used commonly against privacy advocates. However, there are those that have discredited this claim and argue against it. In this essay, arguments will be made to explain why I disagree with the statement ‘if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear from surveillance’. This will be done by exploring the right to privacy, the problem with not knowing who has access to our personal data, the possibility of data being misinterpreted and the effect of discrimination through surveillance.
One of the key points against the ‘I have nothing to hide’ arguments is that it disregards the right to privacy. Privacy is a fundamental part of our lives and it true to say that most people would have ‘something to hide’ whether it is something embarrassing or just that they are simply unwilling to disclose intimate information about their personal lives. For example, an individual’s salary is typically a private matter and most people would not be very forthcoming with the details if asked about it from a stranger if it is not required. However, mass surveillance permits strangers to access personal data such as this and the ‘I have nothing to hide’ argument suggests that people should blindly let this happen if they are innocent of any wrong doing. In reaction to this argument, United States whistle-blower and former National Security Agency worker Edward Snowden stated:
"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" (Open Rights Group, 2015).
Snowden is essentially saying that privacy is a fundamental right like any other. Defendants of the ‘I have nothing to hide’ argument would also be unhappy if private information of theirs such as everything they ever did, said or sent to someone were to be exposed even if they had ‘nothing to hide’. This argument implies that if you wish to remain somewhat private and withhold something, then you must have something to hide which is flawed logic as having a desire for privacy does not immediately correlate with incriminating or deviant behaviour. Therefore, the right to privacy is a major counter argument to the ‘I have nothing to hide’ debate.
Following from this, there is also a concern regarding privacy when we are unaware of who has access to our personal information. Data is collected on our personal lives through financial records, health records, education records, criminal records, phone records, consumer purchases and anything we search for online. Every move we make on the internet leaves a digital trail which can be recorded and assessed. Information can then be passed from one organisation to another meaning private data is increasingly available to others (Fulcher and Scott, 2011: 551). For instance, the supermarket Tesco is alleged to be creating a profile of consumers from across the UK containing information on their consumer preferences and their personal lives such as where they travel to and their general lifestyle choices (Fulcher and Scott, 2011: 551). This information is then sold to other retail companies to be analysed. By doing so, these organisations can directly advertise towards you on what may interest you according to the data they’ve received. In addition, companies such as Facebook, Amazon and Google provide ‘recommendations’ based on your previous search history and the data which has been received. On one hand, these options can be helpful and be a useful tool for obtaining what you may have been looking for, however, this also poses as a privacy risk if people have not provided consent to have this performed. Therefore, there is an issue of how personal data can be sold without the individual’s knowledge and repurposed.
In addition, the data collected by different organisations has the potential to be misinterpreted. Everything we do is recorded and submitted into a database and the police and security services can have access to this data. Information from various sources can then be collated to form a picture of us and reflect on what type of person we are. A snapshot such as this may be a misrepresentation of and individual’s life because it would be difficult to analyse and assess someone – who you don’t know – from so little information or sometimes too much information. In some scenarios, the collated data may wrongly create a suspicious profile of an individual and encourage more surveillance on them or it could benefit society by gathering evidence of a potential criminal. Grouping data from multiple areas can permit information to be misconstrued.
Another issue with mass surveillance is that there is the risk of discrimination against groups or individuals. For example, in a study conducted over two years by Norris and Armstrong (1999) on how operators worked in a CCTV control room. They were examining on whether specific groups were focused on when looking for suspicious or criminal behaviour. During the study, it was found that the operators mostly scrutinised young men, non-white people, and the working class. Some of the operators displayed “stereotypical negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities and black youths in particular” (Norris and Armstrong, 1999: 169). Operator bias is apparent from this and initial opinions of groups were influential to what they looked for in suspects. Again, this feeds into the idea of why people should be wary of being constantly monitored because of how certain groups of people are labelled and categorised as potentially criminal instead of focusing on the general population rather than distinct crowds. In relation to the ‘I have nothing to hide argument’, there is evidence that suggests people should be cautious of surveillance as in some cases general law-abiding citizens can be targeted for no plausible reasons other than pre-conceived negative attitudes.
Overall, the statement “if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear from surveillance” is not persuasive. Different methods of mass surveillance negate the right to privacy, allows companies to sell personal data, allows for the risk of data being misinterpreted and, in some cases, allows for discrimination against certain groups when under surveillance. Although, mass surveillance is to some extent necessary and beneficial to modern society for monitoring people as new technology develops and the population grows. Potentially, there is something to fear from surveillance if we cannot control it or know what is being collected.