Inconvenient Fact #4 about Privacy: The US government was already tracking every citizen's postal mail, and storing a copy of the contents for potential later

Inconvenient Fact #4 about Privacy: The US government was already tracking every citizen's postal mail, and storing a copy of the contents for potential later use, for many years before networked computers, "email" and the "world wide web". Further, anyone working at a government security contractor could at their own discretion inspect any such postal mail. I would hope you're now thinking "Wait a second. That would be quite difficult to do." Truthfully, I have no idea whether postal mail was tracked and stored; I am only trying to make a point. My point is that one reason we're seeing a mass scale dragnet now is because _it is so easy to accomplish_. phk seems to ignore this inconvenient fact. I see no reason for him to try to persuade citizens to choose politics _over_ use of technology as a means to preserve their right to privacy. Why does his frame of reference need to be binary: that it's either one or the other? Is there a rationale for this? Maybe citizens should pursue _both_? If citizens routinely through their choice of technology make surveillance of their communications _ridiculously easy_, then how will they be perceived when they come forth and demand greater privacy? Who would take them seriously? If citizens are to persuade their representatives that the privacy of their communications is important to protect, then I would argue they must practice what they advocate. They should not be communicating by megaphone. Or plain text.