[dgellow]

Are you saying that privacy should be trade for less poverty, less unemployment, less debt, etc?

Lot of people do not have the luxury to focus on privacy concerns, the same way lot of people do not have the luxury to care or focus on climate issues. Does that make privacy and climate concerns something reserved for "people with privileged life"? It seems quite clear to me that's not the case. They are both a concern for everyone but some have more freedom to spend time caring about them. Lot of people are struggling with other more immediate issues, but that doesn't reduce in any case the importance of privacy.

[lern_too_spel]

No, it doesn't mean privacy is a luxury. It means privacy is less important than those things.

[dgellow]

Caring about privacy is the luxury. Not privacy itself, neither does it imply that privacy is less important. Just that people who have to care about more urgent dangers won't always have to capacity to take in account something like privacy issues. But these people still deserve of privacy, and we should try to build solution that embrace both privacy AND helping them with their unemployment, poverty, or other more urgent issue.

[lern_too_spel]

Yes, people deserve privacy and education and many other things. The point is that food security and shelter are even more important by a very large margin.

[xenocratus]

Well how about we don't try to compare pears with apples. Privacy and poverty are both pretty important in their own way, let's not make clickbaity claims just for the sake of it.