> most people realize they can't possibly win an arms race and so opt for greater quality of life They may believe this in some cases, but it's based on an inc

> most people realize they can't possibly win an arms race and so opt for greater quality of life They may believe this in some cases, but it's based on an incorrect risk assessment. We evolved in a world where nothing persisted forever. Everything faded with time and copying was always imperfect, which limited how far information could spread. Surveillance had both an initial cost to collect data and maintenance costs to store and use it. In that world, the risks are bounded. Then Shannon invented a way to copy information perfectly, without the cumulative noise that limited the scope and risk of any failure of privacy, > Do I spend a fortune rebuilding and reinforcing the structure No, because your door is limited in how many people can attack it simultaneously and how long attacks can continue without being noticed. It would be incredibly foolish to apply the same evaluation to privacy, where data is persistent and risks is unbounded. edit: Sorry, I have to cut this a bit short - meds are being annoying today. Maybe see one of my recent comments[1] on this topic? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13459109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13459109