While using VPNs might protect your privacy in the short-run, it's just a continuation of the privacy-invasion arms race. And it's kinda hard to win a tit-for-tat war when your opponent has an unlimited supply of 'tat', and a whole bunch of armed, well-trained dudes they can send round to your house when you don't comply with their newest rule.

- The US government tries to restrict 'strong' crypto --> people print PGP source code on t-shirts and the government eventually has to accept SSL/TLS.

- The government starts capturing information directly off devices (using regular search warrants etc. --> people start using encryption (e.g. truecrypt, veracrypt) and large device makers respond to consumer concerns by encrypting by default.

- The government starts MiTM'ing everyone's traffic at the ISP and online service provider (e.g. google, microsoft) level, using their newly created pseudo-court, secret warrant process (FISA) --> people start using VPNs.

- The government starts talking about key escrow, banning encryption.....

You can't eradicate a disease by just treating the symptoms as they pop up (in ever increasing severity). If you do this, you'll die. You have to attack the disease directly (and, in many cases, first convince people that they really are ill). So far, we've made one attempt at the direct approach by 'engaging in public discourse'. It's clear this is not effective in this case.

I doubt protesting in the streets would make much of a difference either, if the lead up to the Iraq war is anything to go by. Consider these two quotes from the previous thread (the second is mine), as just one example of the many possible actions that could be taken:

"The Video Privacy Protection Act was passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's rental history was leaked to a newspaper."

and

"I've always liked the idea of using the copious public video of these politicians to train voice and face recognition NNs, specifically targeting anti-privacy politicians. Maybe even sell pre-made raspberry pis with all of this stuff preloaded for journalists to scatter around places that politicians congregate.

I think it's only fair that these folks get to be the first ones to live in the kind of world they are creating. And none of them should have a problem with any of this, because I'm certain none of them ever do anything wrong and therefore have nothing to hide."

Although one always tends to like one's own ideas, I think this idea has merit, because:

- It's low effort compared to organising protests and then getting everyone to take to the streets

- It directly attacks the source and (assuming you aren't sent to a Federally funded leisure resort for your efforts), creates a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation: they either pass laws to stop this kind of privacy invasion, or we end up with a long-term selective pressure against anti-privacy politicians. Everyone has secrets...

- It directly educates the public about their "illness" (through example). It shows them exactly how their life could be in the near future if they don't start paying serious attention to privacy issues. If a bunch of angry nerds can pull it off, imagine what the NSA and CIA are capable of...

The time for 'reasoned public discourse' and 'teching around the problem' is well and truly over. It doesn't hurt to do these things, but it does no good in the long-run either. More drastic measures are required.