[Gene_Parmesan]

I simultaneously agree with you (tor being another prime example of this -- they may not be able to see which tor sites you're visiting [unless they control the exit node] but they sure as hell can see you're using tor), and also think that at some level, the "what have YOU got to hide?" attitude is purposefully encouraged by the intelligence agencies as a way to slowly erode privacy expectations. "Good people don't need an expectation of privacy" is the start of a really dark path.

[prox]

People will willfully and joyfully will vote for a would-be dictator, so I don’t privacy is really the main thing that brings us on a really dark path. There are far bigger fish to fry to protecting our basic rights and values.

The balance between privacy and the authority is just that. We outsourced the rule of law to the state in order to have a fair and just society. Ipso facto the government should be fair and just to have the right to invade some amount of privacy in order to keep a society free, fair and just.

That’s why the judicial branch exist: to see if what the government (or anyone) did was playing by the rules.

Which brings us back to politics being a danger to a society if people vote in unjust or unfair people.

[tsimionescu]

I don't think this is what the GP was arguing. They were not discussing whether what the court system did was right and justified, nor whether people who know they have done nothing wrong/illegal should be expected not to use privacy technology.

Instead, they were pointing out that it's hard to imagine why the people who knew they were engaging in criminal activity and were hoping to hide it thought it would be a good idea to have specialized equipment/services rather than blending in the crowd with normal phones and apps.