What is Privacy ? Why is it Important ?
TLDR: because nobody wants the state to put a camera in their bedroom
This is where the Journey begins. We're going to look at why you should bother with Privacy first of all, and what it is exactly.
What is Privacy ?
In short, Privacy means that you are not under surveillance. In this example, Bob wants to talk to Alice privately, so he shuts the door on the prying eyes of Jack. So that he can't hear their conversation.
Privacy is Bob and Alice's ability to seclude themselves from the awareness of others. It is the ability that Bob has, to close the door on Jack, so that he cannot see his actions anymore.
When you are looking for Privacy, always ask yourself : Privacy from what ? Privacy from whom ? in other words, Whom do I want to close the curtain on ?
The Enemy of Privacy is Surveillance
Make no mistake, as we discussed previously, governments NEED surveillance to be able to fulfil the first condition to be able to enforce their laws: 
They need to know what happened. To be able to know what happened, they need surveillance to be implemented wherever they can , and it is definitely easy for them to force large businesses providing large centralised services to act on their behalf.
Yes, ANY company can act on any government's behalf. Take for example Microsoft spying on everyone through their closed source software Windows 10, or Apple spying on their users through their MacOS closed-source software, The US government is very open about it (see FISA 702).
In this current world we live in, Surveillance is nearly omnipresent, where there is a business involved, and especially closed-source software, Surveillance is right there.
Here's an example where Bob (which represents nearly 99% of the people out there) is being spied on by:
-
Microsoft (because Bob uses Windows)
-
Google (because he uses Google and Google Chrome)
-
Bob's ISP (because he doesn't use a VPN nor Tor)
If Bob were to do something sketchy using his computer, Law Enforcement would obtain all the information they need to know what Bob did, because he used Windows, Google Chrome, and no VPN/Anonymization network.
And it does not stop there, even when LE is not involved, politicians can also request and pay to get private user data , at the discretion of those large companies that specialize on infringing upon users' privacy for their own profit (see the cambridge analytica scandal).
Your personal data is being sold by large corporations, for their own profit, and your consent is of no concern to them.
The Panopticon, Myth or Reality ?
The Panopticon originally was a prison building design, which was designed by the social theorist Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, where the core concept revolved around making all prisoners to be observed by a single cop, without the inmates being able to know whether or not they are being watched.
The idea is that every inmate, since they don't know whether or not they are being watched, they would have to assume that they were under constant surveillance, forcing all of them to behave at their best , even if the cop is not looking in their direction.
Now you probably get where I'm trying to go with this, this is the narrative that governments are trying to push, that everyone's actions are under constant surveillance, that everyone must behave at their best at all times if they don't want to end up in jail. And how convenient it must be for those governments, they have the vast majority of their populations giving away their privacy in the name of convenience by using closed-source software on their phones, on their computers, on their laptops, on their routers, etc.
If privacy doesn't matter, I hope you won't mind me installing a camera in your bedroom, filming you 24/7 right ?
For some reason, it is as if everyone is accepting the panopticon narrative as if it was normal, that everything they do is anyway being watched by big brother and for some reason that's supposed to be ok. Exhibitionism definitely isn't my thing, but governments and law enforcement certainly are into voyeurism, as it helps them prosecute whoever they don't like, to try and preserve the control they have over the masses.
The panopticon myth ends where you decide to put the effort to restore your privacy , you could simply pull over the blinds to prevent outsiders from looking at what you're doing in your bedroom, but there are a myriad of things you have to do to protect your privacy online. It is all up to you if you are willing to put the effort to get it, or not.
Why is Privacy Important?
Ask yourself this simple question: "Who should be aware of what I do ?"
Let's take the most common example you can encounter: "Should a company (such as Microsoft) be able to spy on what I do with my computer ?"
How many people are we talking about exactly ? How big is Microsoft Corporation ? How many of them can see what you do with your computer ?
In other words, are you ok with having an entire crowd being aware of your actions ?
You better be a good speaker if that is the intent, remain aware that you are stepping up on a stage for many people to see what you are doing, when using closed-source software.
Is that normal to you ? Do you like putting your every action on display for everyone to see ?
If your answer to that question is no, Then it's time for you to close the curtains, so that this crowd can't see anymore. To close the curtain, you need to stop using closed-source software.
So what if the government sees everything I do?
Perhaps you're starting to understand the value of privacy, yet still don't prioritize it yourself. After all, the vast majority of people haven't experienced harm despite a decline in privacy for many. You might believe that because millions use Y social platform or Z cloud service, the owning tech companies and the government would never target you, particularly as a "law-abiding" user. This leads you to accept a lack of privacy, considering privacy is complex, big tech is convenient, and the government is fairly distant. However, let's first examine specific instances where individuals faced negative consequences because a government was able to see their actions.
Jamal Khashoggi
Jamal Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian journalist and political dissident who criticized King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He championed democracy and human rights within Saudi Arabia. He was murdered and dismembered due to his outspoken views. Significantly, Amnesty Lab found that the phones of his wife and his fiancée were both infected with the Pegasus spyware in the months preceding the assassination. (His own phone infection is also suspected, though the phone was not available for forensic analysis.) Developed by the NSO Group, Pegasus spyware was subsequently sold to the Saudi Arabian government, which likely used the intelligence gleaned from the spyware to implicate Khashoggi and orchestrate his murder.
(Refer to this article and this article for a full story.)
Mohamedou Ould Slahi
Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian engineer, was detained at Guantanamo Bay for 15 years without charge. He was suspected of being "part of" Al-Qaeda (a summary is at the bottom of the document), allegedly recruiting two of the pilots involved in the 9/11 attacks; but a court deemed the government's evidence against him to be insufficient. Following his detention and interrogation in Jordan for eight months (starting in 2001), he was subsequently transferred to Guantánamo Bay detention camp.
At Guantánamo, Mr. Slahi was held in total isolation for months, kept in a freezing cold cell, shackled to the floor, deprived of food, made to drink salt water, forced to stand in a room with strobe lights and heavy metal music for hours at a time, threatened with harm to his family, forbidden from praying, beaten and subjected to the "frequent flyer” program, during which he was awakened every few hours to deprive him of sleep. The government falsely told him that his mother had been arrested and was being sent to Guantánamo. His abuse was confirmed and well documented in a 2009 report by the Senate Armed Services Committee that investigated allegations of detainee abuse at Guantánamo. In fact, the military lawyer originally assigned to prosecute the case against Mr. Slahi in the military commissions, Marine Corps Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, determined that the statements wrung from Mr. Slahi during his interrogations were so tainted by torture that they couldn't ethically be used against him. Ultimately, Col. Couch told his supervisors that he was "morally opposed” to Mr. Slahi's treatment, and refused to participate in the prosecution (ACLU).
The Senate Armed Services Committee report can be found here. The details of Slahi's treatment start on page 166 of the PDF (page 135 of the scanned document).
Released from Guantánamo in 2016 after 15 years of imprisonment, Mohamedou Ould Slahi was never convicted of any crime, rendering the US government's treatment of him unlawful.
Kansas Police Chief
Kansas, U.S. police chief Lee Nygaard accessed data from Flock Safety's ALPRs (automatic license plate readers) 228 times over a span of four months to monitor his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend. While no physical harm occurred in this case, the extended surveillance, lasting four months before he got caught, could have become a more serious situation.
US Government ICE
As of November 30, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had detained at least 65,000 individuals (BBC News). ICE employs a mobile application called Mobile Fortify to scan suspected immigrants' faces for identification purposes. However, facial recognition technology is not always accurate, potentially resulting in lawful citizens being wrongly arrested.
It gets worse. In a document obtained by 404Media, the government admits that "it is conceivable that a photo taken by an agent using the Mobile Fortify mobile application could be that of someone other than an alien, including US citizens or lawful permanent residents”. No one, citizen or non-citizen, is allowed to opt out, either. And, as the document states, "[e]very new photograph or fingerprint, regardless of match, is an encounter and stored and retained in ATS [Automated Targeting System] for 15 years” (The Guardian).
Brandon Mayfield
Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed after the FBI mistakenly identified his fingerprint recovered from the scene of the 2004 Madrid subway bombings.
"The days, weeks and months following my arrest," he said, "were some of the darkest we [he and his family] have had to endure. I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches, sleep deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and chains, threats, physical pain and humiliation."
...
Despite doubts from Spanish officials about the validity of the fingerprint match, American officials began an aggressive high-level investigation into Mr. Mayfield in the weeks after the bombings. The fact that he had represented a terrorism defendant in a child-custody case in Portland spurred further interest in him. Using expanded surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the government wiretapped his conversations, conducted secret searches of his home and his law office and jailed him for two weeks as a material witness in the case before a judge threw out the case against him (New York Times)
What it all means
These examples illustrate the potential impacts of government data collection. They are not intended to focus on individual privacy choices, but rather to demonstrate the government's considerable power over individuals. This could apply to anyone, as exemplified by the case of Brandon Mayfield. By routinely sharing information with large tech companies, and understanding that they may subsequently sell or be compelled to share that data with the government, individuals inadvertently increase the risk that their data could be linked to a suspected criminal, potentially leading to a false accusation.
The core fallacy
The core fallacy that many believe is "I am a law-abiding citizen and therefore have nothing to hide." This erroneous belief rests on the flawed extrapolation of present safety into the future. There's no assurance that laws or government priorities will remain consistent over time. It's possible to be deemed a target tomorrow, regardless of present legal status. This has already been demonstrated by the arrests of long-term American residents, often based solely on their appearance, by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While illegal immigrants commit crimes, peaceful immigrants pose no threat, raising the question of why they are targeted, and why citizens are targeted. The current situation, driven by the president's desire to demonstrate his power, undermines the stated goal of protecting U.S. citizens. If he genuinely cared about immigration, he would be outraged by the deaths of at least two U.S. citizens at the hands of ICE, as the purpose of immigration enforcement is to safeguard American citizens.
The potentially unauthorized deployment of ICE highlights a critical flaw in the U.S. government's system of checks and balances: a misplaced assumption that all government actors will actively oppose unlawful actions. Though certain people in government may disagree with the actions of others, their complacency allows real harm to occur, even if ultimately rectified. The U.S. system represents a best-case scenario compared to governments with less robust checks and balances.
(This isn't about political debate; it's to demonstrate how government overreach can harm individuals.)
This extends beyond immigration concerns and impacts any beliefs around polarized topics.
The systems we've created allow those in power to leverage technology to manipulate citizens, leaving them powerless. Regardless of an individual's lack of importance, inevitably they will form opinions on certain topics. When the government labels an opinion a threat to "national security,” they will easily identify who holds that opinion by consulting the large technology companies behind the pervasive social media platforms and analyzing user data.
The government will invariably seek to rationalize its crackdowns, for "safety" or "national security".
Furthermore, by leveraging the extensive data held by large technology companies, governments could potentially predict an individual's thoughts, despite the fact that people don't necessarily hold those specific beliefs. Consequently, internet usage alone, even if a person has no expressed opinions, could falsely represent someone as potential "threat" to national security. Stopping the government from doing this is challenging, requiring the use of private, open source technology. Open source technology is essential to prevent a situation like Apple's, where data security is unclear. While Apple claims to prioritize privacy, they boast a market capitalization of $3.8 trillion (as of February 2026), which suggests a primary focus on profit.
Finally, if "they" can see everything, isn't it already too late? It's never too late. If a person smokes cigarettes for twenty years, it is crucial to stop immediately, not continue to smoke for another twenty or ten years. In the same way, now is the best time to stop sharing your private information with big tech and the government; providing more data won't improve your situation. They don't need the information. If you were hesitant about privacy because you believed it doesn't matter, as you adhere to the law, your information wouldn't be useful to government investigations.
Again, stop using closed-source software; use private messengers like SimpleX; practice agorism, and,
If you seek to help, join the open source community and fight to keep the spirit of the press alive and the internet free. I have been to the darkest corners of government, and what they fear is light.
-Edward Snowden
Suggest changes
nihilist
2024-06-14
Donate XMR to the author:8C1MNeB4KEHGApg6sPxFPn3NWERD3mPv7AjC8mCm1CJCXjoKnf36SYBdZ6ywCMdZRC4cxu7Uax3tufDqMXS2mLvHNCJzQZS