Sometimes the best nuggets come out in blurts. You all know about the known unknowns, for example. (That has even become a poem.) The one that I would like to open this chapter with also comes from a summit of power, albeit a different kind. This is what an executive of Google blurted out in response to concerns about privacy in services it provided (especially its new service Buzz, designed to compete with Twitter): ‘If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place’ (Schmidt 2009). Never mind that he was ‘scolded’ by rights groups about privacy. This nugget reveals a logic about our times that is as precious as it is relevant for our understanding of the operations of power with which this volume is concerned. What the executive seems to be saying is that secrecy is a symptom of wrongdoing, if not criminality, in short, illegality. This coupling of secrecy and illegality is then matched by transparency and legality. If you are within the law (i.e. if you are regular) you do not need to fear. If you are not within the law (i.e. if you are irregular) you must bear its consequences. The essays in this collection show that this ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’ logic has become dominant in controlling the geographic mobility of people between states.