>Does the fact that people comply with invasion of privacy mean that the issue doesn't matter? Maybe it does if you don't think that the behavior of the masses

>Does the fact that people comply with invasion of privacy mean that the issue doesn't matter? Maybe it does if you don't think that the behavior of the masses can be manufactured. By that same token, convincing people to be either pro-privacy or ambivalent to privacy is manufactured behavior, isn't it? If people vote against their interest, then who are we to force them one way or the other? Its hard to say without sounding harsh, but at some point, you have to draw the line on personal responsibility, and stop coddling people. Also, privacy is a relatively modern concept. When cities and towns were small, everyone got into everyone's business. Certainly, you can favor one position over the other because of your belief that it would lead to a better society. There are lots of things here that reasonable people can discuss and agree or disagree on.