The resolution of a debate often hinges on how the problem being debated is presented. In psychology and related disciplines, this method of issue presentation is known as framing. Framing theory holds that even small changes in the presentation of an issue or event can produce significant changes of opinion. Framing has become increasingly important in discussions about privacy and security. In his new book, "Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security," Daniel Solove argues that if we continue to view privacy and security as diametrically opposed to each other, privacy will always lose. Solove argues that the predetermined abandonment of privacy in security-related disputes means that the structure of the privacy-security debate is inherently flawed. This Review describes Solove’s polemic as a strong and needed collection of frames that counterbalances the “nothing to hide” argument and other security-biased refrains so often used in privacy disputes. It also suggests additional frames that could contour this debate, including confidentiality, obscurity, and the commonalities between privacy and security.