snowden was quoted saying:
“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say”
this is not a relevant argument which talks about the true nature of extracting and interpreting information from masses.
snowden is giving way too much credit to governments, supporting an illusion government leadership and staff know what they are doing.
the truth is most likely opposite:
the truth is that we should be afraid of being a collateral damage in a conflict we have nothing to do with.
we should protect our privacy so government staff does not hurt us by error and in unjustified prejudice.
governments have a long history of extreme bias and prejudice, generalizing, not being diligently check before they act, and over-reacting.
they are not examples of organizations which make reasonable decisions based on interpreting data.
most governments operate under the pressure of short terms and seek quick results, which are not possible.
i really do not want some eager spy wannabe 10 years younger than me, who did not experience life in the same way i did, reading my emails, and blacklisting me.
anyone who has done a visa interview can probably relate.
protecting your privacy is not about hiding secrets, but hiding your everyday thoughts from prejudiced people.
the day i get an email from a spy saying “i find your views on freedom interesting, and, if you agree, i will forward them to our change department” will be the day i might start to feel safe about someone reading my emails.
until that day, i am seriously afraid of trigger happy spies with high tech toys.
i do believe we need protection from an those weird people who want to blow up stuff to get attention, especially in era when a good physics student can build a nuclear weapon, but i do not want to be a collateral damage.
when i think of spies, in spite of all the propaganda like zero dark thirty, i do not think of james bond, but of this.