It is not only about people buying sense of safety at the expense of privacy and it's obvious problems due to shifting powers and vastly greater opportunities for abuse with decreased chance of ever being caught of such abuse.
It is about the faulty argument that the "nothing to hide" argument and it's various mutations are, as the paper argues. One of the problematic parts is that the faultiness of the said arguments aren't very obvious on an individual basis. Although the argument for "stopping 9/11 ever happening again"(or any other "fight terrorism" argument) is to "save lives", which inherently subjects to "any (American) lives", the "nothing to hide" argument acts on an individual basis unlike the argument about terrorism and saving lives which acts on a collective basis.
Because the "nothing to hide" arguments acts on an individual basis, it can be interpreted as "whatever as long as it doesn't happen to me" type of argument, yet it is used to argue for a collective matter.
If it were about the lives, banning alcohol would save tens of thousands of lives annually(assuming that "banning alcohol" would result in zero alcohol consumption, which is false, but brings out the point and even argued hypocricy regarding the "fighting terrorism" argument).
It is about the faulty argument that the "nothing to hide" argument and it's various mutations are, as the paper argues. One of the problematic parts is that the faultiness of the said arguments aren't very obvious on an individual basis. Although the argument for "stopping 9/11 ever happening again"(or any other "fight terrorism" argument) is to "save lives", which inherently subjects to "any (American) lives", the "nothing to hide" argument acts on an individual basis unlike the argument about terrorism and saving lives which acts on a collective basis.
Because the "nothing to hide" arguments acts on an individual basis, it can be interpreted as "whatever as long as it doesn't happen to me" type of argument, yet it is used to argue for a collective matter.
If it were about the lives, banning alcohol would save tens of thousands of lives annually(assuming that "banning alcohol" would result in zero alcohol consumption, which is false, but brings out the point and even argued hypocricy regarding the "fighting terrorism" argument).