Rhetoric Analysis Why Privacy Matters

Insert Surname 5

RhetoricAnalysis: Why Privacy Matters

Thearticle in selection is about whyprivacy matters byProfessor Daniel J. Solove.In this article, Solove argues that the privacy issue affects morethan an individual who hides a wrong. The message of Solove jumpsinto the a dissection of havingnothing to hidewhich is mentioned in discussion regarding government`s analysis andgathering for personal information. In essence, he explains how theargument stems from the insufficient definition of privacy and whatit possesses. Nothing-to-hideadherentstate that since the information will never be disclosed, theinterest of privacy is minimal and the interest in security interrorism prevention is more important (Solove, Para 8).

LogosEthos and Pathos

Hefurther states the message that the government data collection andsurveillance failed to focus on the complexities associated withstorage and processing of gathered information. They rather focus onuse and collection of personal data. Solove intends to refute theclaims of nothing-to-hideargumentsthrough acknowledging each of the application and the used logicindiscrediting them. Solove convinced the audience effectively that theargument in regard to nothing-to-hidefailsto cover adequately all the problems arising from the governmentsurveillance and gathering. Through building his ethosas acredible and a moral writer through demonstration of his scholarlyexpertise and credibility, and establishment of Logosthroughpresentation of logical conclusion and argument to the audience andfinally developing pathosthroughthe use of emotional and dramatic language in that he can appeal tothe emotions of the audience


Throughthe introduction, Solove focuses on building intrinsic ethos andcreation of an ethical appeal to the audience. The article isformatted as a preview of a greater discussion. Solove begins bystating the argument of the article “Ihave nothing to hide, only when you are doing wrong you have to worryandthen you don`t deserve to keep it private. This statement in itselfjuxtaposes the title in that it builds trust between the readers andthe author through recognition of common belief that is held by theaudience. To establish a relationship and make the audiencepersuaded, he begins strengthening his perceived moral characterthrough alteration of two opposing points of views.

Heexplains the reasoning behind the argument and thus creates a senseof goodwill with his audience. To bolster the claims stated therein,he quotes his fellow authors in his introduction. For instance, hequotes Nobel Prize winner Aleksandra who declared every individualguilty of something. This quotation enables the author identify withthe audience and speak his trustworthiness and credibility. Hefurther establishes ethosthroughdemonstration of his scholarly credit.


Solovededicates the body of his article on logical appeal. He does thisthrough examination of the weaknesses inherent in deductive argumentsthat make nothing-to-hideargumentsand through an explanation the of the inductive reasoning behind theargument. He explains the adherents of nothing-to-hideargumentdo no define privacy accurately. Through analyzing the context ofcomplex privacy and the way that it cannot be reduced the to soledefinition, he logically appeals to the audience and infers that theassumption of the argument are false. He further refutes that theterm privacy a is a pluralityofseveral things that do not share the same element but just aresemblance to one another (Solove Para 10). He then introducesinstances of privacy invasion in support of the argument such asblackmail, voyeurism and improper use of personal data. The examplesenable the audience to understand the complexity of privacy (SolovePara 17).

Throughhis explanation of the argument`s weaknesses, he appears logically tothe audience through inductive reasoning. He then builds his argumentwith examples and definitions. Ultimately, he builds the inductiveargument to persuade the audience. He completes his inductiveargument with a metaphor and a logical appeal to the audience. Hepresents that &quotalthough the society will probably respond to theoil spill, gradual pollution by many actors creates worse problems(Solove Para 29). In essence, he states this since the government hasinvaded our privacy that creates more problems, and thus we must notallow it since it will lead to major problems


Soloveconcludes the article with a pathos that appeals to the audienceemotionally. He appeals to imagination and sympathies of theaudience. He uses more emotional, dramatic language such as statingthat privacy is not threatened by a sole egregious act but the slowaccretion of minor acts (Solove Para 29). As a result to the changesin language, the audience identifies with the point of view of thespeaker and the audience becomes aware of the urgency connected withaction. He appeals to the imagination of the audience by mentioningminoracts. Solovefurther asks an array of questions in the second person in question.For instance &quotwhatif it denies you the right to fly” (SolovePara 30-31). The question solicits the feeling of anger andfrustration. He further capitalizes on the emotional response.


Throughthe effective use of rhetorical tools, the speaker persuades theaudience that the argument of the article nothing-to-hideisnarrow, and one-sided way of privacy conception. He uses hisexpertise through focusing on ethical appeal and managing therhetorical distance with his audience. He displays his logicallyappeal through demonstration of scholarly credit and finally appealsto the emotion of the audience in the conclusion.


Solove,Daniel J. &quotWhy privacy matters even if you have ‘nothing tohide’.&quot Chronicleof Higher Education15 (2011).