&gt; <i>And the way to counteract this is by speaking up and showing them that the victims are real people</i><p>How&#x27;s that been working out for hard drug users, file sharers, and non-molesting pedophiles?<p>&gt; <i>hiding is not going to be an option</i><p>This is such an utterly <i>defeatist</i> conclusion. There will always be some types of information that are impossible to keep private and some that will be easy to, but there&#x27;s a huge middleground that requires organization and resources (eg traffic cameras, credit bureaus) to collect, aggregate, and exploit. The entities currently doing are <i>centralized</i>, so they could easily be put out of business. Individual actions and peers will only leak certain things through eg mass photos, and to presuppose omniscience on the part of a would-be decentralized reconstructor is to ignore how that capability would be bootstrapped - the economic advantage from private surveillance that currently goes unregulated.<p>Obviously the existing power structures have a lot more to gain by developing surveillance than prohibiting it. But a decently secured computer containing one&#x27;s private files is a shining beacon of a Schelling point as well. I really don&#x27;t see the point of capitulating early and backfitting it into a philosophy of openness. I guarantee our rulers won&#x27;t be quick to do so either.