Privacy is a form of security. This view of them as opposing forces only makes sense if you view "security" as only meaning the security of those in power against those they have power over.

That's one type of security, and the security of your state isn't unimportant, but it's not the only kind and for those in the western world it's not even close to the most important.

I think you're missing the point. In the modern world there comes a point where we either have to sacrifice some privacy for increased security or we can have total privacy (encrypt everything) and lose our security. If you think it is any other way you are foolish.

I get the point, I just think that the idea that total privacy would "lose our security" to be completely unconvincing. Encrypt everything would only be a real problem for mass surveillance technologies.

I guess the difference is that I see mass surveillance and any movement towards a panopticon as much more dangerous than terrorism or espionage have ever been. There is no rolling back a panopticon as that's very close to complete and unlimited political power.

Why not?