You have nothing to hide

If you don't need to lock your door, you live in a safe country. If you are not allowed to lock your door—or cannot—you live in a surveillance state.

"What is your problem with the state (or anyone else) being able to look into your data, if you have nothing to hide?"

Whenever I hear this well-worn line, I get a chill down my spine. It has already caused so much damage. People who share my view often respond with: “Nobody knows when a state will go off the rails—then you’ll be glad they don’t have your data.” That is true, but I don’t think we even need to go to such extremes.

For “you have nothing to hide” to be true, several conditions have to hold:

1. Rule of law: the law is enforced properly and equally for everyone.
2. Moral laws: the laws themselves are acceptable.
3. Stability: (1) and (2) will still be true in the future.

I claim that none of these three conditions really holds. Point two may sound subjective, but I believe one can show that no legal system is fully acceptable to everyone (perhaps it can never be).

Rule of law

Formally, many states claim to be governed by the rule of law. But “rule of law” is not a binary property.

I am a young Swiss citizen with legal expenses insurance—and yet I feel intimidated when my employer pressures me to sign a contract that, read literally, appropriates the rights to all of my past work.

If I were wealthy enough, I would approach this differently, because I would know I could afford to fight. The rule of law is not just about laws and courts. Some people are intimidated—consciously (as in my case) or unconsciously—into not taking the legal route.

There is also a cost–benefit calculation: is it worth the effort? If I suspect that what ChatGPT or Google does with my data is an illegal intrusion into my privacy, I ask myself: should I really go to court? Whom do I sue? On what legal basis? Or should I just go to work, then come home and change diapers? I choose the latter every time. The law is therefore rarely enforced—and that is not necessarily a problem. The secret of a functioning society is not relentless enforcement; it is people behaving decently without needing courts and police (more on that later).

Others are intimidated because they are not “at home” here. Over the last years I have worked with many foreigners. One of them is a somewhat anxious Italian. He does speak a national language, but that does not help him much in Schaffhausen. When he receives a letter from the migration office, he does not understand it. He translates it with DeepL or Google Translate. Some nuances remain unclear. He comes from a country where “going to the counter” or “calling” does not help. So he writes an email—and gets a short reply. To him it sounds threatening. In fact, even a perfectly normal email can be threatening: if he does not follow a process he cannot fully understand linguistically, he may have to leave the country. Keep in mind: this friend is highly educated; we did our PhD together. For less educated people, this is even more frightening.

The law is not applied equally to everyone. The psychological, social, economic, and cultural mechanisms are far too complex for the claim: “Anyone can go to court, therefore everyone has the same chance.”

Moral law

In Switzerland, an efficient strategy is often: “Just do it and don’t ask.” “Where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge.” (So much for the rule of law.) Knowing where you can be a little relaxed about boundaries—and where you cannot—mostly works only if you have lived here for a long time.

Here are a few of these “Swiss” solutions: cycling on the sidewalk without lights and getting off when someone comes; puncturing empty spray cans and disposing of them as residual waste; signing your partner’s ballot; overtaking cars that needlessly block the left lane on the right; sharing a Netflix account beyond just your household; or occasionally crossing into Germany without ID. The list could go on forever.

Switzerland is efficient in part because such informal practices exist—because we can use common sense to decide when rules are too strict. We repeatedly make our own judgment: “How bad is it really to ride without a helmet?” “Is anyone else put at risk?” “How likely is it that I’ll get caught?” This personal responsibility is central; it should be strengthened and taught, not abolished.

Overall, Swiss society is deeply shaped by two things at once: believing that we are a state governed by the rule of law, and regularly breaking rules because it is convenient. The belief is useful: if we believe we behave lawfully, we trust the state and one another. It is that trust that makes our society efficient and safe—not the laws and the police alone.

I think we need both: believing in the good and acting pragmatically.

Interim conclusion

Fortunately, Swiss law has not often been changed retroactively (which would contradict the rule of law). But laws do change. What is legal today may be illegal tomorrow, and vice versa. Law reflects the spirit of the times—often shaped by older voters, who both hold more power and participate more.

We cannot foresee which of our “pragmatic” solutions will be condemned in the future. So who has something to hide? Everyone. Because nobody can predict what will later be judged as unacceptable—or which laws will suddenly be enforced without mercy.

Quality of a society

The key property that gives Switzerland prosperity is that people follow rules without constant monitoring.

If you don't need to lock your door, you live in a safe country. If you are not allowed to lock your door (bank secrecy, encryption backdoors, data hoarding, etc.), you live in a surveillance state.

What about the fraudsters?

Why is bank secrecy attacked again and again? Why is end-to-end encryption questioned? Because there are actors in our society who abuse a flexible system built on trust. They do not merely operate in a grey area; they commit tax evasion, organised crime, or distribute illegal content such as child sexual abuse material.

Everyone wants to prevent that. But the proposed countermeasures often carry a potential for abuse that may be as large as—if not larger than—the harm they are meant to prevent.

For example, one could imagine a system where police can obtain a digital search warrant and where refusing to comply is punishable. Such warrants would have to be requested individually. Measures like that do not require a backdoor in encryption.