Bank transactions, social media, and medical release forms, are just a few examples of privacy matters encountered daily, but what definition does privacy hold in today’s society? In Professor Daniel J. Solove’s essay, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’,” he debates that privacy issues affect more than individuals with something to hide. Professor Solove describes how an insufficient definition of privacy allows for an interpretation of its meaning. Privacy, However, cannot be condensed to one particular principle. He explains, “It (privacy) is a plurality of different things that do not share any one element but nevertheless bear a resemblance to one another.” Solove elaborates on how the nothing-to-hide argument concentrates
…show more content…
He cites numerous peers throughout his essay to reinforce the creditability of his statements, for example, Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, data-security expert Bruce Schneier, Canadian privacy expert David Flaherty, and legal scholar Geoffrey Stone. Through the use of rhetoric, Solove expresses to the reader that the nothing-to-hide argument is one piece of a larger puzzle. He creates a relationship with the reader by building upon his ethos as a trustworthy writer and demonstrates his scholarly credibility and expertise on the subject. Solove further establishes his knowledge on the issue through a depiction of his argument on an international scale. Professor Solove reveals the nothing-to-hide argument extends beyond American borders by divulging details of the British Government’s attempt to gather and analyze information by installing millions of public surveillance cameras throughout towns and cities. He suggests everyone has something to hide from somebody. Solove quotes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as saying, "Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it
He cites numerous peers throughout his essay to reinforce the creditability of his statements, for example, Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, data-security expert Bruce Schneier, Canadian privacy expert David Flaherty, and legal scholar Geoffrey Stone. Through the use of rhetoric, Solove expresses to the reader that the nothing-to-hide argument is one piece of a larger puzzle. He creates a relationship with the reader by building upon his ethos as a trustworthy writer and demonstrates his scholarly credibility and expertise on the subject. Solove further establishes his knowledge on the issue through a depiction of his argument on an international scale. Professor Solove reveals the nothing-to-hide argument extends beyond American borders by divulging details of the British Government’s attempt to gather and analyze information by installing millions of public surveillance cameras throughout towns and cities. He suggests everyone has something to hide from somebody. Solove quotes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as saying, "Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it