Actually I think it is a continuously declining by generation.
For example my grandfather absolutely hated credit cards with a passion. He was convinced the credit card companies were an invasion of privacy as well as the antitrust acts (there are still only three credit bureaus). My parents and I despite his recommendations still use credit cards (he in fact later had to get a credit card later in life as it is fairly impossible shockingly to purchase/own a car with just check or cash).
Now I'm the old fart complaining to my younger peers about Facebook.
People can trade for things. They want a service. They are OK with being cattle. Who are you to get mad? It's like when the US got mad that the Palestinians elected Hamas. They get to vote. Let them have their way.
That's a really bogus argument. Many people can be easily misled even if they don't actually support what they are REALLY voting for.
Manipulating masses for votes is a science ever since the ancient Rome, if not even earlier.
This however is an off-topic and I apologize. I simply wanted to point out that voting is yet another deeply flawed but still massively used system and it's part of the problem that this thread tries to address. Emphasis: this is my opinion.
This type of argument is complete nonsense. You might as well say "it's legal for me to insult you, so who are you to complain?" or "telling people that my message is bad is censorship".
"Let them have their way"‽ Well, by that measure what the heck business do you have telling the US not to get mad? Let them, the US, have their way in terms of getting mad. It's their right to get mad.
You're replying to someone complaining about people's bad decisions. Well, that poster wants to complain. Who are you to object to them complaining?
Sure, so let's build something that will attract their votes and will better represent the direction we want it to go. I can't see where you are coming from, why shouldn't I try to convince the "cattle" to "vote" differently just because they currently aren't? The reason they are voting the way they currently are is because of the campaigning of my opponents.
Privacy is a form of security. This view of them as opposing forces only makes sense if you view "security" as only meaning the security of those in power against those they have power over.
That's one type of security, and the security of your state isn't unimportant, but it's not the only kind and for those in the western world it's not even close to the most important.
I think you're missing the point. In the modern world there comes a point where we either have to sacrifice some privacy for increased security or we can have total privacy (encrypt everything) and lose our security. If you think it is any other way you are foolish.
I get the point, I just think that the idea that total privacy would "lose our security" to be completely unconvincing. Encrypt everything would only be a real problem for mass surveillance technologies.
I guess the difference is that I see mass surveillance and any movement towards a panopticon as much more dangerous than terrorism or espionage have ever been. There is no rolling back a panopticon as that's very close to complete and unlimited political power.
