If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear.

I heard this phrase uttered by an Austin policeman on the radio yesterday and it made me so angry. I hate that phrase with a passion.

The government uses it to justify laws like this or spying like this which inetivitably lead to incidents like this or this or this. I could go on all day (but Rx has warned me against that, so I will keep it short).

This is a version of the very popular “The innocent have nothing to fear” argument, which is wheeled out whenever authorities wish to bring in new measures which increase surveillance or limit freedoms in the name of increasing security. For example, someone demands to search your luggage. You object to this intrusion on your privacy, but you are told that if you are innocent, you have no reason to object. After all, what are you trying to hide?
The argument is a particular species of false dichotomy. You are presented with a simple either/or choice. Either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice. -Julian Baggini

Here are a couple of good retorts to say if someone ever says that phrase to you to justify an intrusion on your privacy...
"Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition"
"If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me."
"Isn't that what Stalin used to say?"
"Is that feeling you get when a policeman is following you on the road a pleasant one? If the government never abused its power then it would be."