So the idea that you have nothing to hide is completely banal. Those who are more powerful than you won't leave you alone just because you ignore them. They will eventually come knocking to steal your wealth and your freedom.

193 files for Eric Schmidt according to https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-tech-elites-gates-...

314 files for Larry Page

294 files for Sergey Brin

Interesting rhetoric. It's always the people you suspect the most?

Privacy is good

Crime is not necessarily bad

You don't have to even go Anne Frank to make the argument.

Everyone who has been helping Google/Amazon/Meta construct their digital panopticons is culpable in at least some small way for the abuse that may follow.

Not only that’s very rarely true as the article shows pretty nicely… what is legal changes, sometimes drastically and rapidly.

The data broker eco system is notoriously intransparent and dynamic.

Surely don't need to ditch the whole system then and just needs a better kill-switch.

No one really says that in an absolute sense, it is always in context, what it usually means is "I trust a particular institution with the data they collect", not "I will give my credit card number to everyone who asks".

For example, let's say you approve of the police installing security cameras monitored by police in your residence, if you say "I have nothing to hide" what you are actually meaning is "there is nothing these cameras can see that I would want to hide from the police". I think it is obvious that it doesn't mean you approve of having the same cameras installed in your bathroom.

The real question is one of trust and risk assessment. Are the risks of revealing a piece of information worth it? how much do you trust the other party? not the literal meaning of "nothing to hide".