(Unfortunately, this was by far the most pleasant part of the whole process. Take, for example, the rejection of her application because the NJ State Police aren't certified by the INS for taking fingerprints. Instead, we had to go to a camera shop in Edison, NJ.)
You would think after so many cases of abuse - some large, some small, some invoking Godwin's Law... that people would stop touting the bullshit that is "if you have nothing to hide..."
Wow! You snuck that one in there.
Here is an article by Bruce Schneier you might find interesting, it dissects the lazy assertion that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma...
But it is still very important to consider the issue for society and individuals when an agency has "wide latitude" when it does decide it's time to investigate.
In 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, Daniel Solove writes:
The problems caused by breaches of confidentiality do not merely consist of individual emotional distress; they involve a violation of trust within a relationship. There is a strong social value in ensuring that promises are kept and that trust is maintained in relationships. . .
In that quote Solove is referring to a business giving info to government despite its privacy policy. I think it is germane here because one doesn't expect something labeled "friend" to be an information gathering conduit for a 3rd party (such as governmental one or even a commercial one). The essay a good read for understanding some of the dimensions of privacy in contradiction to the "I've got nothing to hide" concept, which can be a convincing argument when you think you don't have anything to hide: