Privacy Isn’t About Hiding. It’s About Being Secure in Your Person.

Why I’m comfortable sharing information with businesses but draw the line at unconstitutional government surveillance.

I’ve noticed people taking digital privacy seriously enough to change the operating systems on their phones. Some are installing GrapheneOS, a security- and privacy-focused Android alternative with additional protections and more control over apps and Google services.

I think that’s pretty cool. I’ve even considered installing it on my own Google Pixel. But I like my phone, I appreciate Google’s ecosystem, and I haven’t found a compelling reason to replace something that works for me.

Does that mean I don’t care about privacy? Absolutely not.

It means I make my own decisions about which information to share, with whom, and for what benefit.

Privacy isn’t about having something to hide. It’s about being secure in your person.

And there’s a big difference between voluntarily sharing data with a business and being subjected to government surveillance that violates constitutional protections.

I’m Not Opposed to Data Collection

Here’s something that might surprise privacy advocates: I don’t automatically object when a company uses my information to provide a service or show relevant advertising.

If Google remembers my preferences, great. If I have to log in to prove I’m entitled to a service I’m paying for, that makes sense. I understand that information has value, and sometimes I’m happy to exchange some of mine for something useful.

That doesn’t mean I trust every company equally.

Trust has to be earned, and companies can lose it through arbitrary decisions or a lack of meaningful accountability. (I’m looking at you, Facebook!)

Consider people who have their social media accounts suspended and can’t get an effective appeal. They may lose access to family photographs, conversations, memories, or businesses they’ve built on the platform.

In June 2025, I signed a Change.org petition called Meta Wrongfully Disabling Accounts with No Human Customer Support, later renamed Hold Meta Accountable for Wrongful Account Disabling. Its supporters described inaccessible accounts, inadequate reviews, and personal data they couldn’t recover. The campaign reached more than 65,000 supporters. You can read about the petition and the organizers’ continuing efforts through People Over Platforms Worldwide.

Imagine losing years of family photographs because a platform locked your account and offered no meaningful way to challenge its decision. That’s how trust gets destroyed.

But data collection itself isn’t automatically the problem. My questions are simple: What are you collecting? Why do you need it? What will you do with it?

If I understand the arrangement and consider it worthwhile, I’m generally comfortable participating.

The important part is that I get to make that decision.

Oh No! My TV Knows I Like Star Trek!

People get upset about their smart TVs “spying” on them. Modern televisions can use automatic content recognition to learn viewing habits and target ads.

Oh no! They know I like Star Trek! (As if my favorite original Star Trek episodes weren’t already a clue.)

Now, could somebody please stop showing me sports betting ads and tampon commercials?

Seriously, if you’re going to personalize the ads, at least show me something I’m remotely interested in!

Companies absolutely should be transparent and get consent where required. The FTC’s case against Vizio shows why the rules around disclosure and consent matter. And if you don’t want your viewing habits tracked at all, I respect that choice.

But personally, I’m less concerned about a TV manufacturer knowing I enjoy science fiction than about what happens when commercial information makes its way into government hands.

Then there are systems designed for surveillance in the first place. Flock automated license-plate readers can record when and where vehicles pass cameras. The Electronic Frontier Foundation explains how these systems work, while Reason examines the legal battles and the Tenth Amendment Center discusses proposed limits.

License-plate readers can help with legitimate investigations. They also raise serious questions about data retention, sharing, access, and oversight.

There’s a big difference between a company knowing what I watch and government potentially reconstructing where I go without sufficient legal justification.

One wants to sell me something. The other has the power of the state behind it.

The Government Is Different

I am far more concerned about government surveillance than about a company using my browsing habits to recommend a product.

Why? Because government possesses powers private businesses do not.

A business can advertise to me, recommend products, or attempt to persuade me to buy something.

Government can investigate me, compel evidence within legal limits, seize property, and deprive someone of liberty through the legal system.

That’s an extraordinary amount of power. And extraordinary power requires extraordinary limitations and accountability.

Fortunately, the people who established our constitutional system understood that.

Secure in Our Persons

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution begins:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Think about that language for a moment.

Secure in their persons.

The Constitution doesn’t say we have to prove we’re innocent before enjoying protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. It doesn’t say our privacy deserves protection only when we’re doing something the government approves of.

And it certainly doesn’t suggest that having nothing to hide eliminates the need for constitutional safeguards.

Our rights aren’t rewards for good behavior. They are limitations on government power.

That’s why I reject the familiar argument that someone who has nothing to hide should have nothing to fear from surveillance.

It’s the wrong question.

The question isn’t what someone may or may not be “hiding; The question is what lawful authority the government has to look.

The Government Shouldn’t Be Able to Buy Its Way Around the Constitution

Modern technology has created a problem the authors of the Constitution could never have imagined.

Private companies collect enormous amounts of information about our daily lives. Our phones generate location records. Apps collect information about our activities. Advertising networks and data brokers can assemble detailed profiles of individuals.

Some of that information becomes available for purchase, including by government agencies or their contractors.

In an investigation published by Reason, Joe Lancaster described examples of federal agencies purchasing commercially available location information.

Now consider the constitutional implications.

If a government agency would ordinarily need a warrant to obtain certain protected information directly, should it be permitted to sidestep that requirement by purchasing the same information from a commercial data broker?

I don’t believe so.

The Constitution shouldn’t become optional simply because the government can reach for its wallet instead of obtaining a warrant.

The Supreme Court recognized an important aspect of digital privacy in its 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States. The Court held that obtaining extensive historical cellphone location records from a wireless provider is generally a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant.

The decision was deliberately narrow. It didn’t settle every constitutional question surrounding commercially available data or automated license-plate readers.

But it recognized that modern technology can reveal extraordinary details about our lives—and the fact that a company holds information doesn’t automatically eliminate constitutional protection.

To me, the underlying principle is clear: government shouldn’t be able to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.

Enumerated Powers Still Matter

Another principle deserves attention: enumerated powers.

The federal government wasn’t given unlimited authority to do whatever it considers useful. Its powers come from the Constitution.

And where does the Constitution get its authority? From the people.

The Declaration of Independence says governments derive their just powers from “the consent of the governed.” The Constitution begins with three powerful words:

“We the People.”

Not “We the Government.” Not “We the Politicians.”

We the People.

The people are the ultimate source of legitimate government authority. Through the Constitution’s ratification, the people of the states established a federal government with defined powers and limits. The Tenth Amendment Center discusses this idea of popular sovereignty in greater detail.

Government doesn’t grant us our rights as a favor. Our constitutional system recognizes rights and limits what government may do.

Of course government has legitimate investigative authority. Law enforcement can investigate crimes, gather evidence, and protect public safety. But a legitimate objective doesn’t justify every possible method.

The means matter as much as the ends.

Technology isn’t a blank check to expand government power. The constitutional rules may be difficult to apply to new tools, but difficulty isn’t an excuse to abandon them.

That’s fundamentally different from my TV learning what I watch or a company using information to show ads.

Consenting to commercial data collection isn’t consenting to government surveillance.

Government doesn’t derive its authority from Google, Facebook, or a data broker. It derives its authority under a Constitution whose legitimacy rests on the people—and that authority has limits.

Privacy Isn’t Secrecy

I think we’ve allowed the discussion about privacy to become unnecessarily complicated.

We close the curtains in our homes. We lock our doors. We don’t give strangers unrestricted access to our personal correspondence. We have private conversations.

Does any of that mean we’re hiding something illegal?

Of course not.

It means we recognize that our personal lives belong to us. Our digital lives deserve the same consideration.

The fact that information exists somewhere on a computer doesn’t mean government should have unrestricted access to it.

And the fact that I’ve voluntarily shared information with a business doesn’t mean I’ve consented to government surveillance.

Those are two very different relationships.

Privacy Tools Without Going Off the Grid

Fortunately, you don’t have to rebuild your digital life to make thoughtful privacy choices. I’ve written about what happened when one of my websites was hacked, so I know security deserves attention too—even though privacy and security aren’t exactly the same thing.

I’m comfortable with Google’s version of Android on my Pixel. Someone else might prefer GrapheneOS. Neither of us has to be wrong. Updates, sensible app permissions, and knowing what a tool actually protects can matter more than treating privacy as an all-or-nothing contest.

For example, I use NextDNS to block selected advertising and tracking domains. When configured with encrypted DNS, it also helps keep my DNS lookups private from the network operator. But DNS filtering isn’t a VPN: it doesn’t hide every site connection from my internet provider or stop tracking within accounts I’m signed into.

I also use Proton Mail as a secondary email option—not as a replacement for my main email, and not as an automatic backup copy of my existing mailbox. I like having an independent service available and appreciate its privacy-focused design. It’s part of the same thinking behind having more than just a cell phone to access your digital life.

There’s real technology behind it: Proton says mail between Proton accounts is end-to-end encrypted, and messages stored in its mailbox are protected with zero-access encryption. Emails to ordinary outside addresses are not automatically end-to-end encrypted unless additional protections, such as password-protected messages or PGP, are used. It’s a useful choice, not a magic invisibility cloak.

Disclosure: The NextDNS and Proton Mail links above are referral/affiliate links. I may receive a benefit if you sign up through them.

Different Choices, Same Rights

Some people want to share as little information as possible. Others, like me, are comfortable making specific trade-offs for convenience. I respect both approaches.

Neither choice should determine whether someone enjoys constitutional protection. Using Google’s services doesn’t mean I’ve consented to unreasonable government searches; avoiding them doesn’t make somebody suspicious.

Privacy is about individual choice and limits on the power of others to intrude into our lives. It’s not about proving you have something to hide.

The Bottom Line

I’m not opposed to companies using information I willingly share to provide something useful. And I’m not opposed to legitimate law enforcement investigations conducted within constitutional limits.

But I oppose government surveillance that violates those limits—whether it happens directly or by obtaining commercial data that shouldn’t be available without lawful justification.

Government doesn’t have authority simply because it claims it. Its powers are defined and constrained by the Constitution, whose legitimacy rests on the people.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, not merely from searches that uncover something embarrassing.

We have the right to be secure in our persons.

Not because we have something to hide. Not because we’ve earned the government’s approval.

But because liberty demands it.

And no amount of technological progress should change that.