IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

THERE IS A new device for American citizens who cross the U.S.-Mexican
border frequently. The device reads palm prints and displays relevant
information, including photo, on a video screen. Instant ID. No annoying
fumbling for documents. Traffic back-ups minimized -- if you're in the
database. If you're One Of Us.

A man using the device was asked whether he minded the government having
all that information on file. ``Heck, no,'' he said. ``I have nothing to
hide.''

We used to believe that the desire for privacy was a normal thing. We used
to believe that it did not have to be explained or justified. We used to
believe that sensible people, living their lives every day, had a default
right to be left the hell alone.

Now that has changed. We now believe that only criminals desire a default
right to privacy. We now believe that people who want to be left alone have
``something to hide.'' We now believe that having ``something to hide'' is
a bad thing.

It is an odd view of human behavior. It ignores certain well-known facts.
Almost all of us have something to hide. Humans are prone to error; guilt
and shame are universal emotions. We are uninterested in having our errors
exposed to the light of public scrutiny.

There's always been that tension in a democracy. There are times when
shameful behavior should be publicized. If you take a bribe to cut corners
on that bridge you're building, your malfeasance should be exposed. If you
sell government secrets, or murder children, or defraud stockholders, you
must stand in public and be judged.

But suppose you have a secret that is embarrassing but not criminal.
Something medical, for instance. Or suppose you did something criminal once
but then paid your debt to society. Who has a right to know that? Is hiding
something always bad? Are secrets always threatening?

The right to privacy includes the right to have secrets. Secrets are
normal. In a free society, we get to have secrets. Increasingly, there is a
concerted propaganda effort to suggest that only villains want to have
secrets, that only bad guys need privacy.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS an interest in changing people's views on privacy. Major
corporations have a similar interest. They want information about us. They
want to keep track of us. They want to know where we are, and what we need,
and how much money we have.

It's part of the bargain we made. Conservatives tried to warn us, but we
failed to listen. We failed to listen because raillery against big
government was often tied to racial bigotry or rapacious business
practices. So we got equal opportunity laws and anti-trust laws. We got
social programs that issued checks to many citizens.

But in order to ensure equal opportunity; in order to monitor commerce; in
order to issue checks, a database was needed. The database proved to be
enormously useful. Political parties, law enforcement agencies and
corporations quickly understood the utility of databases.

But you can't have complete databases if people are fretful about privacy.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE the enemy of efficient government. Look at the
message we are given in the television cop shows. People who insist on
their rights are scum. They are always guilty. People who ask for lawyers
are only interested in thwarting justice.

In the context of modern law enforcement, the Fifth Amendment is
inexplicable. The idea that someone cannot be forced to testify against
themselves is a weird remnant of a previous civilization.

Only in the narrowest sense, only in the final stage of the criminal
justice system, are you innocent until proven guilty. Mostly you are
presumed guilty, which is why you have no right of privacy. Innocent people
have ``nothing to hide.'' If you insist on hiding something, you are
guilty. More tomorrow.

I'm not a coward, I've just never been tested; I'd like to think that if I
was I'd pass, just like jrc@sfgate.com

If you're so innocent, why are you wearing clothing and speaking French?

Copyright 1998 San Francisco Chronicle

Checked-by: Richard Lake