Reddit reviews Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security

That's because it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.

I'm 1000% in support of the RestoretheFourth kids, but the fact is, the 4th Amendment has been eroded away to practically nothing over the course of 200ish years of case law -- and it's been accelerating since the 1970s. The common understanding of "privacy" and the legal understanding are wildly different.

For more, read the excellent Nothing to Hide (don't click unless you don't mind being put on a watchlist).

I wish it weren't so, but the Fourth Amendment is kind of already super broken. Legal arguments against surveillance are better served, IMO, by basing them on the chilling effects they have on the First Amendment rights of the survielled.

I'd have to refer you to the linked article and the book it refers to; I don't know any good examples.

But I think it's best not to respond to "I have nothing to hide" with "Yes you do." Privacy isn't about hiding things from the government. It's the issues of government power which are more important.

There's also a book (which I have not yet read), Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security, also by Daniel Solove.

I think it's important to not swing between two extremes - "nothing to hide" and "tor only". It's not all-or-nothing situation; different situations call for different levels of privacy.

One of the issues in the Information age is nothing is ever forgotten, information stays around in the servers and becomes searchable. How many risks would you take talking about the controversial subject if it is automatically linked to your Real Identity and practically unforgettable?

Here's analogy we can try - people can start different businesses, but one of the options they have is that they can start a LLC so they don't have to be personally liable. What would happen if structures like LLCs are discontinued and all businesses have to have owners who in the end have to assume liability with personal assets? I think you know what I am getting at.

"I got nothing to hide" is probably a fallacy and a misplaced trust in human nature especially when it comes to using power, be it commercial or governmental. This argument is mostly used when talked about unwarranted surveillance in which case the point should be that tracking people unsuspected of a crime is a wrong thing to do under any circumstances and not having anything to hide does not make the surveillance ok.
Further reading: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0300172311/

In general, I think the anonymity or very least using aliases has done very well for reddit. The discussion has been frank and let many people discuss subjects that otherwise they would have not been able to although at the same time kicking up youthful hubris here and there but nothing like unpalatable levels or 4chan.