2 big things for me.

First is that everyone, and I mean absolutely everyone has something they want to hide. People assume "I'm not a violent person or a criminal" except yes you are, and you've done something. A great example is everyone in the US speeds, absolutely everyone. Does that mean you want every office to know every instance of you speeding if you get pulled over? So, yes everyone has something they'd rather not say.

Second is more of an example of you should be allowed to go places without everyone knowing. The example was about 5 years ago police used location data to find a person who broke into someone's home. Problem is that the location data they used returned one person who happened to be on that street around the same time. They were riding their bike down the street. To the police they had the person there, they had proof, it was good enough. Except it wasn't, and he obviously wasn't the person they were looking for. Location data put him there though, and sold him out. So maybe not the best thing for whoever to know exactly where you are at any given time.

As for encryption, ask him for his porn history. If he gets upset, just say "why it's not illegal"

but, I agree with the other person. If you're dad is like mine and countless others, you're not fighting against him but propaganda. If that's the case, you aren't going to win this. The only winning is turning off the source.

If I was to answer that type of argument, I would consider those:

• why do you close the door of the bathroom when you use it?
• Can I watch you fuck?
• Show me your last income declaration
• Give me your credit card
• Why do you wear clothing?
• Why do you lock the door of the house?

but I tend to ignore people using the "I have nothing to hide" argument

I'm going to be real. I was part way through an explanation before I deleted it. What you are dealing with sounds like a situation where you simply won't win by using logic. To continue to labor under the presumption that a good and logical reasoning will have an effect is just going to stress you out and achieve nothing.

Google password because I recommended against it being a word.

IT nerds help me out here, but I've been under the impression that the best defense against brute force attacks is a very long password, and the idea of sprinkling in special characters or numbers is outdated. Something like "iwenttothestoreandboughtabirthdaycake" is a more secure password than "$6jds_*WghP6".

edit: Also the mantra to never write down any passwords is more of a workplace piece of advice. I personally think, and this would probably be helpful for older people, that writing down passwords in a notebook which is kept secure in their home is pretty safe. Short of a home invasion, that notebook is safe, and having it can encourage them to diversify their passwords on different accounts. So, if you are going to keep at the issue, taking an angle of using something they are more comfortable with like a paper notebook is going to be accepted more easily than trying to sell them on a password manager or something.

Everyone's got something to hide.

For example, I like to keep my credit card number secret from criminals.

"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." -Edward Snowden

Ask them to unlock their phone and give it to me. If they have nothing to hide from me, then they truly have nothing to hide from anyone since I probably dont hold power over them (nor do I care to).

If they say yes, I show them that im going through their photos, location history, browsing history, texts, emails, all the usual suspects for surveilance. If they're ok with all of that, then by God they truly have nothing to hide.

If they say no, I ask them why. Try to let them find the answer for themselves.

Most just refuse, which is a good reminder to them that everyone has some secrets to keep. Even if they're completely innocuous.

Surprised I didn't see this quote yet:

“Ultimately, 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.” ― Edward Snowden

"I need privacy not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are."

Tell him to leave the bathroom door open anytime he’s taking a shit in public then.

Compare it to free speech. Saying you don't need privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't need free speech because you have nothing to say. Eventually, through no fault of your own, there will come a time when you have something worth saying or hiding, and you will regret having surrendered your right to do so.

Another way to put it is: I don't need privacy because my judgment and intentions are shady, but because the authorities' judgment and intentions are, or one day will be. Allowing the authorities to invade your privacy and suppress your speech diminishes your ability to hold them accountable.

"We require privacy not to conceal our own wrong doing, but to protect against people who would abuse their authority to pry into our lives and do us harm by misrepresenting what they find."

You don’t lock the doors of your house because you have something to hide, you lock it because you have valuable things you want to protect.

Your dad’s fear is not the government (whether or not it actually should be), but he should have a reasonable fear of criminals taking his money. Technology has made it easier than ever to be robbed but also created better locks than ever to fight the criminals.

Give me the man and I will give you the case against him is a saying that was popularized in the Soviet Union and in Poland in the period of the People's Republic of Poland, attributed to the Stalinist jurist Andrey Vyshinsky,[2][5]: 200 [6] or the Soviet secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria.[3][4] It refers to the miscarriage of justice in the form of the abuse of power by the jurists, who could find any defendant guilty of "something", if they so desired

You can find just about anyone guilty of something if you have access to everything they do/say

When mentioning lack of privacy with targeted advertisements, he said that he actually really likes them, because he bought a couple of things he wanted for years.

"It's ok that we're being spied, it lets people better take my money on stuff I wanted anyway"

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

Cardinal Richelieu

Easiest way to explain privacy imo is simply just saying: "If you have nothing to hide, then why do you shut the door when you go to the bathroom?"

I'm reminded of a story I heard about a woman in South America (I don't remember the country.) Her best friend attended a protest one year. She makes a post on Facebook about supporting her best friend. A few years pass, and the government started becoming more and more authoritarian. Finally, she gets a visit from the police, asking about her ties to her best friend, and is threatened with arrest unless she can prove she's not tied to the protest as well.

I'm probably getting some details wrong, but it's a thought that stuck with me. She didn't have anything to hide at the time. But things change, and you can't always predict what you'll have wish you had kept private before.

I posted the following somewhere else recently:

"nothing to hide"

Secrecy and privacy are two different things.

Secrecy is hiding something you don't want anyone to know because it's "Bad/illegal".

Privacy is acknowledging that it's none of ANYONE'S business where you put gas in your car, what route you drive home, what brand of underwear you buy, what kind of music you listen to, your eating habits, etc.....

The more you are ok with data being collected, the more data they will try to collect until finally your life isn't yours anymore.

You don't close the bathroom door because you're doing something illegal, you close the bathroom door because it's none of anyone's business and you aren't interested in being watched.

Our personal data is valuable and holds power over us. Unfortunately it's only been recent decades that this concept REALLY started to sink in and unfortunately big corporations figured it out a little quicker than we did

"Take your pants off then jackass."

It's a stupid comment, treat it with the contempt it deserves. Do they shut the door when they take a shit? whyyyyyy???. You close your blinds there at night? Why ya lockin' the phone there buddy.

Ask if he closes the door when he's on the toilet. Everyone knows what is going on in there and it's nothing illegal, but it's still something most people rather do behind a closed door, because... privacy matters.

Privacy is important so that nefarious individuals don't steal your identity, and everything you worked hard for, in your lifetime.

If they have nothing to hide ask for all of the following; all passwords, to everything (internet, bank, shopping accounts, investments, etc.) Bank statements Tax returns Get a set of keys for their homes, cars, businesses, etc. Remind them that you will be allowed to come over at any hour of the day or night and look through every nook & cranny of their property. If someone really is an open book, let the snooping begin. And also remind them that you will share whatever information you feel like with anyone you choose to, publicly.

Privacy prevents people from being abused, stalked and taken advantage of. Privacy is a form of personal security. That's why we lock the doors at night.

Ask him to share the passwords to all his bank accounts, when he refuses to just highlight that there are plenty of non-illegal things that you want to keep hidden.

"Why do you shit with the door closed? What are you doing there, drugs?"

Do they lock the door to the bathroom? Why? What illegal activities are they doing in there?

If you lock the door to the bathroom you must acknowledge that there are valid reasons for privacy even if you don't do anything illegal.

"May I see your browser history?"

If you have the right relationship for it, ask him about the porn he watches, his banking details and how much money he's got in his account, and tell him you'll go buy a billboard to put those on.

Those usually get people quite quickly, but they're also kind of "gotcha!" moments, and people will generally not respond well to them.

If you want a more structured argument, I think you'll need to reframe the issue. As I read your comment (I'm almost certainly missing huge amounts of context that could change this answer drastically) your father's argument is "privacy is bad because it is only used for bad things" and you're actually arguing back "privacy is good because I want to be left alone". But your dad thinks that you shouldn't be left alone, because being left alone means you're doing something bad.

So, don't argue why privacy is good, you need to argue why privacy isn't bad. Find some examples of things he likes that only happened because of privacy. Try to avoid things like revolutions, resistance movements or stuff like that, because it will only reaffirm his view that privacy means you're doing something bad/anti establishment.

This is where the aforementioned porn/finances comes in, since those are usually things people want to keep private, without having negatives attached (depends a bit with porn on morals). Any guilty pleasures that come into mind would also be useful for this.

Also, make the consequences of no privacy more personal. Government whatever, but what about Janet two doors down? What about his boss? What about his parents?

In the end I'd say it's all about the framing of why privacy matters in the first place. Establish a minimum need for privacy, then expand from there. Hope this helps you (or someone else)!

Someone who says "I actually really like ads" is a broken person. No exceptions.

"Do you shit with the door open?"

"Why? Are you hiding something?"

"To make sure you're not hiding anything, I need you to shit with the door open from now on."

Eventually, they'll justify their need for privacy. When they do, agree with them.

While targeted advertisements may be nice because it's only showing you things that they think that you'll want/need/like, the other side of surveillance based advertising is surveillance pricing.

Surveillance pricing analyzes massive troves of your personal information to predict the price you would be willing to pay for an item—and charge you accordingly. Retailers can charge a higher price when it thinks you can afford to spend more—on payday, for example. Or when you need something the most, such as in an emergency.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/fight-surveillance-pricing-we-need-privacy-first

"Can I look at your browser history and show it to your mom?"

If he’s old he’s not going to understand…plain and simple. My boomer mom is completely unable to grasp privacy no matter how I explain it to her.

The reason you want security is because of scams and viruses…generally not because the government is trying to bust you for something you’re hiding. 

I'm not worried about what I'm doing, I'm worried about the intentions of those looking

They may have nothing to hide but probably something to protect like their credit card numbers, social security numbers and much more. Or they are on the playground with their grandchildren and there's that weird guy with a camera taking pictures of the little ones. Maybe nothing to hide but really something to protect.

Cool, he has nothing to hide, but when people want to get at you, they will invent things. They will decide regular human behaviours are morally abhorrent, and they will have an infrastructure to enforce that. 

It's not about things that are wrong, it's about preventing abusable tools from existing.

Hate to break it to you. Dad has abandoned (or never had) critical thinking capabilities.

There isn’t a reasonable argument you can make against his emotional judgements that will get through and change his beliefs.

You might be able to trojan horse some ideas into his head somehow, but taking the direct path of just giving accurate information will not work

Ask them to unlock their phone and let you snoop on it for 30 mins

A quick quip is: I dont suppose you own curtains? Humans have a harder time conceptually thinking of privacy like curtains.

If you have nothing to hide why go into your bedroom to have sex when you can do it in front of the window where everybody can see? I mean it's not like you are doing anything illegal? Right?

Right?

I call it the bathroom analogy. When you're dropping a deuce, you're not doing anything illegal or immoral, indeed you're not doing anything anyone else isn't also doing, but I'd wager you probably don't want people watching you do it.

gimme your phone and your password i wanna look around.

Years ago, I heard a lecture by the guy who investigated the case referred to in the article below. Thieves and con artists are a legitimate concern. Or at least they should be.

From the Batesville Daily Guard - Batesville, Arkansas

After fighting identity theft for seven years, country singer/songwriter David Lynn Jones is ready to take back his life.

During that time, Jones, on paper, was three people -- and at times, four.

"Two guys were playing me," Jones said. "It's unimaginable, until you go through it . . . that someone who doesn't even look like you can steal your identity. The damage," he said, "is incalculable."

Jones may be ready to sing "I Feel A Change Comin' On" again. That's the title of one of his singles from his heyday.

During better times, Jones released four acclaimed albums -- "Hard Times on Easy Street" (1987), "Wood, Wind and Stone" (1990), "Mixed Emotions" (1992) and "Play by Ear" (1994).

His charting singles include "Bonnie Jean (Little Sister)" which was also a popular music video on television, "High Ridin’ Heroes" (with Waylon Jennings), "The Rogue" and "Tonight in America."

He may be best-known for writing "Living in the Promiseland," a No. 1 hit for Willie Nelson.

While Jones kept writing songs during the past seven years, he could not release them because the identity theft culprits were getting his royalty checks by having the checks sent to their address. Much of the time, that address was in Colorado.

Now, Jones and his wife, Illa, who live east of Cave City, are looking forward to teaming up to record and release a new album.

He also has unreleased albums from the past that can now be put before the public.

"There's five (previously recorded David Lynn Jones) albums that never were released," Jones said. He plans to make those available to buyers on the Internet within the next few months.

Fans should be patient, though, because it may take quite awhile, he said.

In February, Baxter County sheriff’s investigators arrested Danny James Sullivan, who was working at a McDonald's in Mountain Home under the name David Lynn Jones.

Sullivan was also drawing disability checks from the government under his own name while working at the McDonald's under Jones' name. His aliases include Danny J. Bass and Danny J. Rader.

A day later, acting on a tip, the alleged mastermind of the plot, Janis Rae Wallace, was arrested at a home in Fayetteville. Wallace is also known as Janis French and Janis Rae Jones, the name she used while posing as the real Davis Lynn Jones' "wife."

She's even booked into the jail as Janis Rae Jones.

Wallace and Sullivan, both 51, remain in jail -- she, on a $500,000 bond and he, on a $200,000 bond.

They are each charged with nine counts of felony financial identity fraud, according to an affidavit filed with the charges and signed by sheriff's Sgt. Bob Buschbacher.

The information filed with the charges and in arrest reports matches the story told by Jones -- the real Jones.

"Those are all federal charges," Jones said.

The theft started, Jones said, when Wallace stole his driver's license while working for him.

"At the time, my Social Security number was the same as my driver's license number, and with just that information, they infiltrated my life," Jones said.

Soon, he was getting no mail. It was all going to the fake David Lynn Jones' address via an address change. The mail included preapproved credit card applications that the thieves filled out; after they maxed out the cards, they reported them stolen.

"Among the stolen items via mail were personal checks and business checks from music royalties the victim had earned as a songwriter and musician," Sgt. Buschbacher said.

"They had 'me' moved to Colorado; my phone was shut off," Jones said. "This was back in 2002 . . . . By the time we realized what was going on, we couldn't get it stopped. They wound up with my royalty checks from publishing music," including royalties from "Living in the Promiseland."

Buschbacher said that in the beginning, to further the identity theft scheme, Sullivan, posing as Jones, filled out an identity theft passport request victim information sheet and submitted it to the attorney general's office. Then, he obtained an Arkansas driver's license in the victim's name.

Meanwhile, Jones' elaborate and well-known recording studio at Bexar was stripped of all its expensive equipment.

"I still own the studio," Jones said Saturday. "It's for sale and has been for some time. These people had gone out there and took down the for sale sign and put up no trespassing signs. They were drawing money out of my checking account, which eventually caused me to be overdrafted," he said. His interest rates were doubled because of a bad credit rating.

And to add insult to injury, Wallace convinced people who dealt with Jones financially that someone was trying to steal her identity ("She was speaking as my 'wife,'" Jones said). So, those who could have helped would not even listen to the real Jones.

"When we started talking to credit card companies and banks, they didn’t believe it (was me)," Jones said.

The crowning portion of the identity theft scheme was yet to come.

"They started telling everybody I'd been in a horrible accident in Colorado and I was in a wheelchair and I couldn't play and sing anymore," Jones said. "She even wrote a letter and sent it to all of my family saying that."

Since he had been busy with his work during the earlier part of the problems and hadn't been in touch with family members regularly, several of them even believed the accident story, he said.

"My mother (Verna Jones) passed away during all of this and we were trying to make funeral arrangements," and a check his brother mailed to help with those expenses went to Colorado into the thieves' hands, Jones said. "Even my own brother didn't understand what was going on. I told him I never got the check . . . . It's so crazy when you're actually experiencing it."

The investigation revealed that Wallace and Sullivan obtained a Social Security card, a Colorado identification card and the Arkansas driver's license, all in the name of David Lynn Jones. Wallace then obtained power of attorney over Jones, claiming he was mentally disabled due to the fake "accident."

Wallace and Sullivan were even filing joint federal income tax returns as Mr. and Mrs. David Lynn Jones. Those returns were filed in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Jones said as soon the investigation revealed the first name of the suspect, he knew who was behind the scheme even though she was giving her last name as Jones. Still, the identity thieves stayed one step ahead of authorities for a long time.

Before being arrested, Wallace and Sullivan were trying to get the title to some land Jones owns in Baxter County, authorities said.

A break in the case occurred 15 months ago when Wallace, as Mrs. Jones, and Sullivan, as Jones, applied in person for an identity theft passport at the Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

As soon as Wallace and Sullivan were arrested, investigators obtained search warrants for their houses. Jones said several items found in their homes could only have been obtained by their breaking into his home east of Cave City, where he and his wife have lived for five years.

"We've known for years things were being pilfered, things moved around. They were hanging out in the woods, watching for us to leave (so they could get into the house)."

Investigators found pictures and other items taken from inside Jones' house, as well as photos of the house taken from the driveway.

Jones said officers on the trail of the crooks had been advising Jones for months to be alert and stay well-armed, because one possible logical next step could be to eliminate Jones and his wife, so the identity thieves "could become us. That could have been the last (planned) step," particularly with them applying for the identity passport, Jones said. "Who knows what would have happened next?"

He has high praise for the attorney general's agent who felt something was wrong when Wallace and Sullivan approached him about getting that passport.

"That's what got them caught," Jones said.

The agent was suspicious enough to go into another room and look for pictures of Jones on the Internet. The pictures did not match the man claiming to be Jones.

"If it had not been for the attorney general's office, it'd still be going on," Jones said. "The attorney general's officer said it was the worst case he'd ever seen in all his years of investigating identity theft."

Baxter County Sheriff John Montgomery said the investigation involved personnel from the attorney general's office, the Social Security Administration's Inspector General's office and the sheriff's office.

Jones said he expects he still has years to go to clear the damage to his name.

When asked what the identity theft has cost him, Jones did not give a dollar figure. Instead, he said quietly, "It's cost me seven years of my life."

I usually answer that with some version of “OK, do you mind if I put cameras all over the inside of your house and have my neighbor watch the feed?

being monitored (even if you are not aware of it) changes your behaviour via the 'big brother' effect.

Your behaviour is most of what makes you an individual, and is the means through which people express their autonomy and social existence.

putting these things together gives you the result that you cannot fully be 'yourself' while you are being watched. At best you are performing what you'd like 'yourself' to be for an expected audience.

Self actualisation, or the process of developing and becoming 'yourself' is therefore disrupted meaning that you can never be or know yourself while you lack real privacy.

Another (more dramatic) way to say it would be you cannot be fully human without also enjoying a default privacy