> Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert and cryptographer, expressed opposition, citing Cardinal Richelieu's statement "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged", referring to how a state government can find aspects in a person's life in order to prosecute or blackmail that individual.[11] Schneier also argued that the actual choice is between "liberty versus control" instead of "security versus privacy".[11]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
I don't think the "nothing to hide" argument is unassailable. There are good arguments against it. The "naked in a restaurant" or "why do you pull your shades" responses just happen to be very silly ones.
Crucially, Schneier's argument directly deflates one of the core assumptions of the "nothing to hide," position, whereas the "naked in a restaurant" response is a pithy but meaningless volley that misunderstands the argument it's replying to and so ultimately addresses a position nobody actually holds.
More generally, and at risk of verbosity, it's generally of little use to attack a policy position on the grounds that holding it renders the supporter a hypocrite. "If you support this policy, then logically you have to support this other policy! And since you don't support the other policy, you can't support the original one! Gotcha!"
No, one can support Policy A and not Policy B, even in the face of convincing arguments that one must support both in order to remain ideologically consistent. Ordinary people aren't all that interested in ideological perfection, so it's just simply not a fruitful line of attack.