1. How does Solove characterize (that is, define) the nothing-to-hide argument? What, for Solove, are its limitations?

2. Solove contends that privacy is a large and complex concept composed of a number of related elements that, nevertheless, do not exactly overlap. Review this selection, and write down the various definitions of privacy Solove explores along with the limitations that he offers of each; for each, note the paragraph(s) where it occurs. (This list will help you understand the structure and arrangement of Solove’s argument.)

3. Solove quotes John Dewey as having noted, “A problem well put is half-solved” (paragraph 8). As you’ll see throughout the selections in this chapter, writers are struggling to define privacy in ways that match the complexity of the reality of everyday life. What does Dewey’s aphorism demonstrate about the value and importance of arguments of definition? (Chapter 9 on definitional argument will help you here.)

4. In paragraphs 12–14, Solove discusses two common metaphors for analyzing privacy and does so using the example of two well-known literary works, George Orwell’s 1984 and Franz Kafka’s The Trial. How does Solove use these metaphors to illustrate the difference between information collection and information processing? Why is this distinction key in understanding privacy? From a different perspective, how has Solove written about these two literary works so that, even if you have not read them, you understand his point? What do these examples demonstrate about the potential value of figurative language in explaining concepts? (See Chapter 13 for a discussion of figurative language and metaphor in particular.)

5. Write a rhetorical analysis of this selection. (Chapter 6 will be especially helpful here.) As you begin to examine Solove’s argument in detail, you may decide that you wish to limit your discussion to one particular aspect of it, for example, its arguments based on emotion, character, or facts and reasoning or perhaps the arrangement of the argument (that is, the steps moving from the beginning to the end of the argument).