Nothing to Hide

Student’s Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Date:
Rhetorical Analysis: Solove’s “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument”
The issue of privacy and government surveillance is multifaceted. This makes it difficult for an individual to have a factually sound opinion on the matter without careful consideration of all the relevant factors. As Solove writes, most people of the nothing-to-hide argument opt to take a superficial look at the complex issue of privacy and government surveillance instead of deeply assessing other components revolving around it. This rhetorical analysis examines the way Solove uses various rhetorical devices to bring forth his argument and the effectiveness of each. Solove builds his credibility by taking an objective standpoint, citing several reputable facts from credible sources and taking a two-pronged analysis of the points raised from each of the opposing sides; the manner of the idea expressed in this article makes Solove’s argument an extremely compelling one.
In his article, Solove sets the scene by stating some people’s responses whenever the government intercepts and analyzes personal information. In most cases, the people respond by stating that their lives are clean and they have nothing to hide. Solove states that this is the “most common retort” (734) to questions about government surveillance on the civilians. Solove quickly points out that although this seemingly valid argument shows that a significant number of people is okay with surveillance, it stems from misinformation and inaccurate assumptions.

To keep both sides balanced, he gives responses by the people who oppose the notion of government surveillance and analysis of private information. He then states that even the opposition responses are still based on few aspects of privacy such as nudity and interception of phone conversations which they feel is utterly intrusive. However, Solove acknowledges that most people from both sides of the argument fail to recognize the other aspects of privacy. Towards the end of the article, Solove notes that the effects of the invasion of privacy need to be more conspicuous for the people to understand that it indeed a weighty matter.
Throughout his piece, Solove uses several sources to enhance their credibility, support his argument and to appeal to ethos. Some of these people include “the data security expert Bruce Schneier” (734) and “The legal scholar Geoffrey Stone” (734). Their titles and professional standing in the community make the article’s intended audience believe the information originating from them. Other sources cited by Solove include Henry James’s 1888 novel character The Reverberator, George Orwell and his own highly reputable blog the Concurring Opinions. Further, he also cites “the author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn” (736) and “As the philosopher John Dewey” (737) among many others quoted in the article. Citing these highly reputable sources shows that Solove has conducted substantial research on the matter and that he is writing from an objective perspective as opposed to his own feelings and comfort.
In addition to his appeal to ethos, Solove appeals to logos using several instances of material, facts and logical flow of ideas to express his points. In his article, Solove uses several logical examples and arguments to express his ideas to the audience. For instance, he writes, “the purchase of a book about cancer isn’t very revealing on its own. It just indicates an interest in the disease. Suppose you bought a wig, the purchase of a wig, by itself, could be for a number of reasons. But combine these two pieces of information, and now the inference can be made that you have cancer and are undergoing chemotherapy” (740).
The above example is one of the many used by Solove to express his ideas using logic. He uses this example to put across a point that during its daily surveillance activities, the government may use the details that civilians consider insignificant to know personal information about them. Towards the end of the article, Solove appeals to logos by posing several questions on the reader. He acknowledges that the government agents are still human and can easily make mistakes which could jeopardize the financial well-being or safety of the civilians. He asks, “what if the government mistakenly determines that based on your pattern of activities, you’re likely to engage in a criminal act? What if it denies you the right to fly? What if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd — even if you’ve done nothing wrong — and freezes your accounts?” (743).
To the audience, the logic exhibited in these questions is significantly thought-provoking and serves its intended purpose of convincing the people to reexamine their opinion and think more deeply. In conclusion, Solove manages to express his ideas professionally by appealing to ethos and logos. Further, his objectivity is observable in every sentence as the article is full of logic and facts. These devices contribute significantly to the enhancement of his credibility while, at the same time, enable him to achieve the intended purpose of providing more details concerning the issue of government surveillance and invasion of privacy. He succeeds in convincing the audience that the privacy does not revolve around situations when someone is doing activities.

Work Cited
Solove, Daniel J. “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument.” Everything’s an Argument. Ed. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004.