[danShumway]

> Ok either this is a niche issue or its the next holocaust. It can’t be both.

Your lower bounds on what qualifies as "not niche" is the hecking holocaust? Holy crud.

The holocaust was one of the single largest mass-death events in modern history. It is possible for a thing to be serious while not being worse than the holocaust. That is not a binary.

[Zetice]

Nope, that’s your phrasing, not mine. I didn’t call anything here “niche”.

I also didn’t bring up the holocaust, that was also you.

[danShumway]

> I didn’t call anything here “niche”.

> Which is just another form of: “because it harms one person ever, we can’t accept it.”

What's your definition of the word "niche" then?

Modern privacy violations harm enough people that they are worth taking seriously. They affect large swaths of society and bringing them up is not at all equivalent to saying that because something harms one person we can't accept it. Enough people get harmed by lack of privacy today to cross any reasonable threshold for justifing caring about privacy.

Incidentally, maybe re-read my comments, because I'm honestly really genuinely confused how you thought that I was arguing that modern privacy violations were niche. My consistent point every single comment has been than modern privacy violations are serious and affect multiple people. I'm at loss what you think I was saying other than "this stuff is a mainstream serious issue that affects a lot of people."

> I also didn’t bring up the holocaust, that was also you.

:) Yep, and my analogy stands and is supported by the vast majority of civil rights and social activist groups today, including groups like the ACLU and ADL. If you think the comparison is inappropriate, go argue with them. But you're right, you didn't bring up the holocaust; all you said was that everything that's happened since the holocaust belongs in the same category as saying "because it harms one person ever, we can't accept it."

Which... holy crud, you need to pay attention to the world if you think that.

[Zetice]

Modern privacy violations have nothing even remotely resembling the negative impact the holocaust had on Jewish people…

[danShumway]

And? Unless your cutoff point for "bad enough to care about privacy" is the literal holocaust, that doesn't change a single thing about what I've said in a single one of my comments.

It turns out that amazingly, it is possible for multiple things to both be very bad -- bad enough to prompt action and concern -- while not being the exact same amount of bad. It is remarkable, but true. For example, sometimes you might put your hand on a stove and it might be hot enough to burn your skin, but also not as hot as the surface of the heckin sun -- and somehow your hand will still be burned. It's just incredible the way that continuums work.

----

Look, I've donated $5 to the EFF in your name, which I'm hopeful will allow me to more easily internalize that convincing one singular person online that privacy didn't become obsolete when Hitler died is not a good use of my time or energy. Nobody is going to read down this far so there's nobody else at this point who's sake I'm arguing for; and HN is enough of a privacy-supportive forum that very few people on here needed to be convinced you were wrong anyway.

In contrast to things like the civil rights movement, transgender rights, abortion rights, and so on, this argument we're having right now is actually something that only affects a single person and is not worth the trouble. I shouldn't have gotten pulled into it; I make this mistake far too often. And I think that $5 is enough to offset any potential social impact you would have in this thread.

[Zetice]

Okay argument aside, I appreciate the donation. I do kind of find the EFF to be insufferable in their outreach (hyperbolic), but that's a really nice thing to do. Thanks.

Fundamentally, I think we disagree on whether or not privacy is worth the cost of the people harmed by its existence. I don't think a surveillance state is necessary, but I also don't think bad people should be able to operate with impunity. I trust the American judicial system to provide warrants when necessary, and I believe such an "invasion" of privacy is both necessary and important to keep our society safe.

I further think it's a straw man when pro-privacy advocates pretend like their opposition believes everything should be out in the open; my original point was that nobody thinks everyone's laundry should be fully public. Nobody actually thinks "I've got nothing to hide" (the submission's title). That's not the opposite of total privacy, the "opposing" view is much less extreme.