>Getting back to the crux of the matter, we are never going to see eye to eye. The "example" I keep stating and you keep brushing aside is simply that _I_ would

>Getting back to the crux of the matter, we are never going to see eye to eye. The "example" I keep stating and you keep brushing aside is simply that _I_ would like privacy where possible - for at least self-contained situations. I simply do not wish to trust everyone else to completely empathize with me (having similar computational power, how could they possibly simulate me?), but really I need no further justification for my desire. If you cannot respect my (and others' like me) desire, then you are yet another social engineer with a grand plan for everyone - exactly the type of person I desire privacy from! You continue to mistake my point completely. I'm not saying that your privacy should be gone, I'm saying that it is gone.That ship has sailed, and continuing to rely on it in order to protect yourself from tyranny is not going to work. If you want to sit idly by, clinging to privacy, while tyrants rise to power, you're going to eventually end up in the situation you fear. Fast food restaurants, church/no church, etc. These are not currently legitimate reasons for the police to pull anyone over or detain them. It's not because the police don't have the ability to collect that data, it's because we have laws limiting what the police can and can't do and we have a court system that punishes bad actors on both sides of the law. That is what we need to protect, not whether there a list of fast food restaurants you visited. The amount of information the government has is irrelevant if they are forced to act transparentlyrics with appropriate checks and balances.