> The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
There are a lot of situations we forbid activity that is difficult to prevent (and sometimes difficult to detect).
Whether trying to use the law to deter here is worthwhile, meaningless, or harmful isn't necessarily clear - but it deserves consideration in addition to outright prevention.
It definitely somehow limits their use, but anybody really interested is able to obtain them illegally, or produce them themselves.
I'm afraid the same will be true about micro-drones or whatever else the post suggests.
It's different from drugs in that one of the participants is unwilling, though I don't know whether that's a big enough difference - particularly given that that participant is also unwitting.
Privacy is in the process of becoming antiquated. It is sad, but I think it is inevitable. Surveillance technology advances with technology in general, and counter-surveillance becomes more and more cumbersome. Eventually, we will reach a point where anyone can afford tiny stealth drones to watch what is happening in their neighbors' houses. The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces.
If we accept that premise, let's think about what we are losing. In my understanding, there are two main reasons why privacy is so important:
1) Allowing individuals to avoid becoming targets of persecution for having some attribute. Targeting by oppressive governments for holding idea X, targeting by an evil megacorp for threatening to disrupt industry Y, etc.
2) Allowing individuals to avoid social stigmatization and shame for having some attribute. Getting caught eating one's boogers, viewing porn of people dressed up as pieces of furniture, etc.
For point 1, I think the real issue is imbalance of information. Schemes to abuse access to someones previously private information mostly wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny themselves. Unless, of course, you have some ultra-powerful organization like a well run totalitarian regime, in which case individuals by definition have no privacy rights anyways.
For point 2, I think shrinking privacy will seriously reduce the social response to this kind of information. "So what if I watch porn of people dressed up as furniture; you masturbate while dipping your toes in peanut butter! That's way weirder!" Sure, there are plenty of painfully normal people out there, but I think most shameful weirdness would become commonplace when the full extent of weirdness is out in the open.
All that being said, I do think anonymity is important, and can probably be preserved, as it is distinct from privately acting in physical space, or online while tied to some form of identity. Also, I don't want to argue against efforts to preserve and advance privacy for individuals for as long as possible. I just think that per point 1, we might want to devote effort to reducing the privacy of organizations to try to maintain parity of information access as our individual privacy slips away.