Until they do. What is legal today could be illegal tomorrow.

"I have nothing to hide" is such a dumb argument.

Are you always going to have nothing to hide?

Because it'll be too late to start caring about privacy when you do.

"Cheery was aware that Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase 'The innocent have nothing to fear', believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like 'The innocent have nothing to fear'." ― Terry Pratchett, Snuff

Cool. Let me install these cameras in your house, including your bedroom and bathrooms. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

You have nothing to hide?

I used to work in advertising.

I was just doing my job, and striving to do it well, to the very best of my abilities, to serve my client, by maximally getting into your mind, manipulating you, manipulating your perceptions, your preferences, your purchases, by insidiously shaping your associations and implanting suggestions you would not realise happening.

This was over 20 years ago, before Bill Hicks saved me by telling me to kill myself, and I left advertising for good, promising to never do it again.

The things I would have done to you, without your ken, had I then had access to the data-mining available today... ... just the same as those who are still in advertising are doing to you now. [And the resources my team of 2 had, were miniscule, compared to those with millions and billions to invest, and we still managed to shape the culture and prevailing perceptions, so think what kind of influence they have...]

Nothing to hide?

Sure, let advertisers know everything about you, to ease their way playing you like a puppet without you realising.

Nothing to hide?

Why are you not walking around naked then? Just thermal regulation? Or to preserve your dignity? By preserving your privacy? Are you sure you have nothing to hide? If still sure, by all means, invite every perverted voyeur into your bathroom and bedroom and beyond.

You surely have at least two things to hide.

Not hiding them does not just harm you and cause you loss, it harms everybody else too. Your duty to poke big brother (or big baron or big bot or big blight or big bully or big bank) in the eye, is not just to yourself. It's to everybody, each and all.

You have much to hide.

I presume they're okay with the first surveillance cameras being in their bedrooms then.

This was posted in another thread yesterday, and I found it particularly persuasive: https://thompson2026.com/blog/deviancy-signal/

There's a special kind of contempt I reserve for the person who says, "I have nothing to hide." It's not the gentle pity you'd have for the naive. It's the cold, hard anger you hold for a collaborator. Because these people aren't just surrendering their own liberty. They're instead actively forging the chains for the rest of us. They are a threat, and I think it's time they were told so.

...

On a societal scale, this inaction becomes a collective betrayal. The power of the Deviancy Signal is directly proportional to the number of people who live transparently. Every person who refuses to practice privacy adds another gallon of clean, clear water to the state's pool, making any ripple of dissent ... any deviation ... starkly visible. This is not a passive choice. By refusing to help create a chaotic, noisy baseline of universal privacy, you are actively making the system more effective. You are failing to do your part to make the baseline all deviant, and in doing so, you make us all more vulnerable.

Oh dear god, I thought this was the US Supreme Court, which is bound by the 4th Amendment. Turns out this is the Supreme Court from the State of Telangana in India.

Then why are the Epstein files being heavily redacted? Does the government have something to hide?

But there are no such people with nothing to hide.

Being private as obidient protects being private as disobidient.

To them I'd say, Define "nothing", and then tell me that's a constant.

That is a very rapey mentality 

Ugh, so tired of this old argument. Nothing to hide doesn't mean everything to show. There, now let's get on with our lives.

I had this conversation about privacy a week ago with a colleague. Not sure if it matters but she’s 21. She’s addicted to TikTok and was wondering why I did not use it.

I told her, I don’t trust the makers of it and don’t trust the country the app comes from (China, CCP). I half explained it was because of privacy issues. She looked me dead in the eyes and said “I don’t have anything to hide”.

So I simply said something along lines of;

“of course you don’t. The messages you sent to your boyfriend are not of intimacy things right? Certain pictures you send. Political conversations, your behavior patterns, religion. None of that matters right? Until it can be all used against you. If you care enough, I recommend to just research a couple of things up. Like for example Facebooks Cambridge scandal and Meta’s meddling with politics. Now imagine that from your own government”.

But of course, she shrugged it off and said she did not care.

This is in India, but coming soon to a country near you

It came here first

The Stasi said the same thing, and similar levels of surveillance are significantly cheaper now.

Fuck that. RFK wants me to work on his plantations for daring to be born with autism.

I have a lot of things I want to hide from every single government.

I’d like to go to one of their houses and tell them I want to search the place. After all, they shouldn’t mind if they have nothing to hide, right?

Hmmm. Wonder how much they have to hide

This goes for the supreme court too, right?

What about if a person working for the public sector contacts a journalist about corruption? Or if a nurse contacts a journalist on how bad a hospital (owned by public sector) is controlled? Are those things that are worth hiding? And how should a normal person hide it if everything is monitored?

And what about the future? Even if it is currently legal to be positive to radical ideas such as trans-people, immigration or environment, how will they ensure that a future government doesn't make one of those things illegal and then comes after people who endorsed the radical idea?

One of many countries who have recently decided that basic liberty is more trouble than it's worth. Our governments all just need to admit that we are engaged in informational WW3.

People with nothing to hide have the most to lose.

That's the thing though...
...everyone has something to hide.

'People with nothing to hide' don't exist. All of us have something that we'd like to keep private or even secret.

Sometimes it's little silly things we do when nobody's watching, like tasting our pets' food. Other times it's porn and what specific kind we read/watch/play. And in a tiny, miniscule minority of cases it's crime. Even fewer of those cases are crimes that actually hurt anyone.

Depriving 99.99% of the population (the remaining 0.01% are politicians) of basic rights just to pretend you're stopping crime that 0.001% of the population is comitting. Pretend, because we know it doesn't even work anyway.

Nearly 25 years of mass, global surveillance by the NSA, CIA and FBI, and they failed to catch even a single terrorist or terrorist-to-be. Meanwhile there's a public shooting almost every day.

It's not just about basic human rights or fundamental principles of society. These programs simply don't work. It's a waste of resources. The only result is bulk data gathering on the citizens. I wonder what that could be used for...?

If you are doing nothing wrong then you don't need to hide your face or need guards.

Posts like this are a great test for whether people read the article (or even the first paragraph) before commenting.

Nothing to hide = nothing to show.

Feels like editorialization to me. The author could at least have titled it "Supreme court asks", rather than making it seem as if the court passed a judgement enabling free surveillance.

The judge posed an oral argument, and the Solicitor General provided a counter. It's good that these comments were recorded as it takes the debate forward and shows that a respected lawyer is taking the side of privacy, even if for the sake of winning his case.

There is a lot to criticize about India (my country), but headlines like these just make people angry or assume that it's hopeless to fight back, because "it's the same everywhere". Recognize the harm that it does to our collective mental health and morale. This article could have been titled "Solicitor General upholds the right to privacy in the Supreme Court", and people would have felt more optimistic and ready to tackle related issues in their own lives. It's all about the way you spin it.

===================================

Article text: The Supreme Court on Friday (December 19, 2025) reasoned that people with nothing to hide need not be bothered about or afraid of surveillance, even as the State of Telangana batted for citizens’ right to privacy, emphasising that even the President of India cannot direct anyone to be put under illegal snooping.

The State reminded the court of its own nine-judge Bench judgment upholding privacy as part of the fundamental right to life under the Constitution.

The top court, the sentinel on the qui vive of fundamental rights, which includes the right to privacy, justified that citizens lived in an “open world”, indicating that those with clear hearts and minds need not be scared of snooping.

The State defended that the question involved was not about an “open or closed world”, but the basic right to be protected against illegal surveillance by the state machinery.

The debate in the court room between the Bench, headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Telangana along with senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, occurred during a hearing in the Telangana phone-tapping case.

“The question is can it [illegal surveillance] be done? The question here is not whether a person is ‘bothered’ or whether he has something to hide,” Mr. Mehta submitted.

The State had sought an extension of the police custody of former Telangana Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief T. Prabhakar Rao, who is an accused in the snooping phone-tapping case during the previous BRS government in the State.

“Now we live in an open world. Nobody is in a closed world. Nobody should be really bothered about surveillance. Why should anyone be bothered about surveillance unless they have something to hide?” Justice Nagarathna questioned.

Mr. Mehta asked whether the court was saying if “every government will have a free hand in putting people under surveillance”. He said illegal snooping by the government the Supreme Court was simply not permitted. It was plainly against the law.

“The Supreme Court knows the difference between an ‘open’ world and being under illegal surveillance. My personal communications with my wife… I have a right not to be under surveillance,” Mr. Mehta pointed out.

The top law officer referred to the court’s judgment in the Puttaswamy case, which had upheld privacy as integral to human dignity, liberty and autonomy, encompassing personal intimacies, family life, and sexual orientation.

Though acknowledging at one point that “ideally” surveillance should not be done, Justice Nagarathna’s oral remarks continued to focus on the logic that a person above board personally and professionally had nothing to conceal or feel guilty to fear from the state targeting them through snooping.

“Why should anyone be scared of surveillance? If you have nothing to hide, why should you be afraid?” Justice Nagarathna queried.

The prosecution case against Mr. Rao concerned an alleged conspiracy to “misuse” the resources of SIB for political purposes by putting citizens from different walks of life under surveillance. Those named as accused in the case had allegedly developed profiles of several persons without authorisation. They were accused of monitoring their subjects secretly and illegally, using the information gleaned from snooping in a partisan manner to favour a political party. The accused were also suspected of a conspiracy to destroy records and evidence of their crimes, according to police.

“This was an illegal surveillance without any authority of law under the guise that they were being monitored in connection with left-wing extremism. The information obtained through these illegal means included personal and medical records… This was profiling. It has to stop here. Thereafter they tried to destroy the data and evidence,” Mr. Mehta argued.

The court extended the police custody of Mr. Rao, who had surrendered, till December 25. The Bench directed that he should be released from custody thereafter since the case was pending in the Supreme Court.

The Bench ordered that no coercive steps should be taken against Mr. Rao till the next date of hearing in the top court, January 16, and he should cooperate with the probe when summoned.

Mr. Rao had surrendered before the investigating officer at the Jubilee Hills police station on December 12 on the directions of the top court. He had moved the top court challenging an order of the Telangana High Court which dismissed his plea seeking anticipatory bail.

Published - December 19, 2025 05:56 pm IST

I'm sure they're fine with a live camera stream of their bathroom and bedroom? If not, then they are hypocritical pieces of shit.