That does not change the fact that new regulation usually tends to do little against information-gathering entities or even mandates more of it while there's li

That does not change the fact that new regulation usually tends to do little against information-gathering entities or even mandates more of it while there's little regulation strengthening privacy. The thing is, anonymous cash transactions work. They have for millenia. And yet there are 0 motions to enable them in the digital space and >0 to restrict or abolish them in meatspace. The privacy they enable is practically treated like a historical accident that needs fixing. Maybe part of the problem is that it's easy to assign monetary value to the law enforcement effort saved if you could just have more surveillance or the additional tax revenue if only every transaction were traceable. But it's a lot harder to put a value on privacy. > they're almost always responses to real problems. Problems may be real, but if the solutions fix that problem by creating new problems then it's not obvious that we should actually fix those problems. Maybe some youths setting bus seats on fire a few times a year is a price worth paying to not have surveillance cameras following every step you make. Just because there are reasons behind those regulations does not mean they are good.