For the most part, I 90% agree with your stance. However, you can’t take the statement “I have nothing to hide” literally to the extremes. That would be suggesting that the person is okay giving you the passwords for their bank accounts under the guide that they have nothing to hide.

Nop . that's not what I meant. What I indicate with the camera in the bathroom is, would you trust the government to be able to watch to keep you safe and do a perfect job at keeping your data safe? Over here (Netherlands) it's even illegal for the government to fit camera's on spots where they can look into houses. (those video doorbells are illegal as well and a pest)

To use your anology, would you be at ease when your banking website is forced to use http instead of https because https is encryption and encryption is bad, so not allowed by your government. When you use encryption, you have something to hide (your banking password) and thus are a criminal. Would you accept that situation, knowing that either de government can collect all your data or a company or even worse, criminals?

A more accurate interpretation here is “They’re not collecting any information that I’m embarrassed about”

When they collect 'all data', there is bound to be something you wouldn't want to share freely, say your banking password. (amongst others). People always have something to hide, even as simple as being in the street while picking your nose when a google maps car drives by (let alone kicing that nice neighbour while married).

Knowing that government/companies/criminals can take/gather information from/about you without telling you exactly what they do with it (even when you trust them enough to keep to their words) is bad.

When I ask you for your banking password it's your choice to either give it to me as you trust me (bad choice, but your choice). When companies entise you to give them access to all information they can gather (including your banking password) and then dowith it as they like takes away the choice.

Sorry, language is messy and oftentimes there are differences between literal and intended meaning. I just wanted to point out why it is indeed, an unfair comparison. You can achieve your point without attacking someone’s (as I argue) correct statement when taken in context, since your underlying point still stands that the majority of people have some limit of sharing information that they would not be comfortable with.

Yep, language is messy (especially when the language used is not your main language), but I use the literal meaning to point out that everybody has something to hide. How they look underneath clothes is for most a pretty private detail they share with a limited group of people. Giving a company/government access to those details are generally accepted as bad, but most don't see data gathering as taking away privacy rights, as long as it's 'for a good cause'. Privacy should never be taken away from everybody because 'the cause is good' or given away easily (and no, neither tiktok or facebook are a good cause).

Everybody has something to hide, so it's everybody has the right for privacy. That right can be revoked under very specific curcomstances, but only when there is enough cause to suspect criminal behaviour.