The main argument for privacy is that a lack of privacy is the primary vehicle of crimes against humanity.

When you do not have privacy, you must then have trust. You are trusting, typically blindly, that your governments and other organizations will not use knowledge against you.

Before the Holocaust, Germany built a registry of known Jews by census. Obviously at the time, nobody knew what it could be used for, the latent evil within just plain information. It was done innocently, naively.

The same applies to all privacy violations. Yes, we could monitor, record, and analyze all text messages. Sure.

What are the consequences of that? What if you live somewhere where being gay is punishable by execution? What if you out yourself?

What if you're not even gay, but it seems as though you might be?

Or what if you live in an authoritarian state, and dissent is punished with death? Your government has cornered you. They can do whatever they like, and you cannot so much as vocalize complaints.

You may say, "oh well this isn't the case for me, so who cares?"

Yes, now, in this particular point in time, in your very specific place. What garantees do you have that things stay that way? None. You are blindly trusting that those who hold your information will not weaponize it.

You have given your enemies a gun, loaded it for them, held it up to your forehead, and said "please don't pull the trigger"

As a thought experiment, imagine how differently the underground railroad would look if everyone had smartphones that were tracked and communications surveilled.

> I think arguments for privacy are pretty poorly argued and often come down to "isn't the idea of someone watching you icky" which this thread is not disabusing me of.

Now imagine that "someone" hates people like you, has the power to hurt you with impunity and is actively looking for any excuse to do so.