[alphanullmeric]

Funny to see this make headlines here, where many people would gladly support using mass surveillance to fund the government. The same ones that support financial privacy restrictions are quick to play victim when the same violations are applied in ways that don’t benefit them.

[lern_too_spel]

That's how it works. People support policies that are beneficial and don't support policies that are harmful. Privacy is just one component of this evaluation. If we demand absolute privacy with no government oversight, even by warrants, the cost of increased crime will be larger than the marginal benefit from increased privacy. If we demand that nobody can hold somebody else's data, the cost to businesses that rely on their employees getting information from their company's logged communications will be larger than the marginal benefit of increased privacy.

[alphanullmeric]

It’s how it works for people that lack consistency. If you don’t want absolute privacy then you are also free to support an absolute lack of it. “I want privacy except when it stops me from getting at other people’s money” is not an acceptable option.

[boredpeter]

Yes the ultra wealthy shouldn’t be able to conceal wealth that gives them immense power to control a so called democratic and free society.

Regular people without that same wealth and power should have some amount of privacy from their government.

It’s not impossible to hold those two beliefs without being a hypocrite.

[alphanullmeric]

While you're running away from that other yes or no question, I might as well try asking you this one - do you support privacy?