>...not a value judgment that that conduct is OK. I'm not clear on how you inferred such an endorsement from statements that people are going to resist by technical means.

By "OK", I don't mean that you agree with it. I mean that by assuming the posture that you are going to focus on defending yourself technically, you are effectively ceding that the government has the right to access whatever it can. You're telling the government that it's OK to get whatever you are unable to protect. It is absolutely the wrong posture and it's what the NSA wants.

>Who is "we" in your proposal? The people of the society?

Yes. Exactly. Who else would "we" be? What does it matter that some don't get it yet when there is some group that finds it objectionable and contrary to our fundamental rights? I mean, it's really a strange position to take when you think of it. If the government was coming after you with tanks and guns, would you go buy a shotgun and stronger locks for your doors? Or would you spread the word and work to check the government per the laws of the land?

So, how about a grassroots campaign to change the public perception landscape?

>Maybe you imagine there is some approximation of democracy in the US.

An approximation of democracy is exactly what I think we have. Listen, you're preaching to the choir on the whole "our democracy is broken" thing. But, to the extent that there's anything left or any way back, fixing this democracy is our only hope. Again: grassroots.

It boggles my mind that the response is to cede everything--broken democracy, surveillance state, etc.--then just dig in to prepare to defend oneself from his/her government. If you actually believe that you can defend yourself from government lawlessness, then you ought to believe that you can play a role in fixing the government.

>Some elements in Congress have tried regulating the surveillance apparatus...I'm not perceiving much prospect of improvement on that front.

And, how long have we been patching zero-day exploits, fending off viruses, etc.? Why are you so confident that you are capable of defending yourself from a determined government with unlimited resources?

>The only realistic avenue to improving privacy and digital security is some combination of [technical solutions]".

I am not advocating that we don't take prudent, precautionary technical measures. Of course we should. I'm saying that they should be secondary and we must lead with legal measures to have any hope of reclaiming our rights and putting an end to this. All of the things you listed sound great. But, in truth, we know that there are exploits and vulnerabilities everywhere. Ironically, as technologists, we want to believe in technical solutions. At the same time, we also know better than anyone that a determined adversary will find a way to pwn us.

For instance, all of your technical "solutions" rely on an up-to-date OS with no zero-day vulnerability, perfect non-exploitable endpoint software, and even full knowledge of our hardware stack, firmware, etc.

In general, what you propose is exactly what the NSA would want. And, you will lose. If you are fortunate enough to even know when you've been pwned, you'll patch things up until the next time. You'll just play cat-and-mouse while your information floats away. Then, at some point, you will say "Wait, this is what we normally do to defend ourselves against criminals. Why am I having to do this to defend against my own government?"

At that point, you will realize that this is first and foremost a legal problem. Only then will you demand what I am advocating right now.