<P> Daniel J. Solove stated in an article for The Chronicle of Higher Education that he opposes the argument; he stated that a government can leak information about a person and cause damage to that person, or use information about a person to deny access to services even if a person did not actually engage in wrongdoing, and that a government can cause damage to one's personal life through making errors . Solove wrote "When engaged directly, the nothing - to - hide argument can ensnare, for it forces the debate to focus on its narrow understanding of privacy . But when confronted with the plurality of privacy problems implicated by government data collection and use beyond surveillance and disclosure, the nothing - to - hide argument, in the end, has nothing to say ." </P> <P> Danah Boyd, a social media researcher, opposes the argument . She said that even though "(p) eople often feel immune from state surveillance because they've done nothing wrong" an entity or group can distort a person's image and harm one's reputation, or guilt by association can be used to defame a person . </P> <P> Adam D. Moore, author of Privacy Rights: Moral and Legal Foundations, argued "it is the view that rights are resistant to cost / benefit or consequentialist sort of arguments . Here we are rejecting the view that privacy interests are the sorts of things that can be traded for security ." He also stated that surveillance can disproportionately affect certain groups in society based on appearance, ethnicity, and religion . Moore maintains that there are at least three other problems with the "nothing to hide" argument . First, if individuals have privacy rights, then invoking "nothing to hide" is irrelevant . Privacy, understood as a right to control access to and uses of spaces, locations, and personal information, means that it is the right holder who determines access . To drive this point home Moore offers the following case . "Imagine upon exiting your house one day you find a person searching through your trash painstakingly putting the shredded notes and documents back together . In response to your stunned silence he proclaims' you don't have anything to worry about--there is no reason to hide, is there?"' Second, individuals may wish to hide embarrassing behavior or conduct not accepted by the dominant culture . "Consider someone's sexual or medical history . Imagine someone visiting a library to learn about alternative lifestyles not accepted by the majority ." Finally, Moore argues that "nothing to hide," if taken seriously, could be used against government agents, politicians, and CEO's . This is to turn the "nothing to hide" argument on its head . Moore argues that the NSA agent, politician, police chief, and CEO have nothing to hide so they should embrace total transparency like the rest of us . "But they don't and when given the technological tools to watch, the politician, police chief, or CEO are almost always convinced that watching others is a good thing ." </P> <P> Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and cryptographer, expressed opposition, citing Cardinal Richelieu's statement "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged", referring to how a state government can find aspects in a person's life in order to prosecute or blackmail that individual . Schneier also argued "Too many wrongly characterize the debate as' security versus privacy .' The real choice is liberty versus control ." </P>

Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy