This is eerily similar to the privacy argument "well I don't do anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about". The problem is you don't decide what should be hidden and what should be available, the state does, and things can change quickly. Having said that, it would be easy to change your security settings as known security threats become apparent.

"Eerily similar" only in that I, like most other people, do not have to worry about being arrested, yes.

Dangerous to think you cannot be tried for a crime you did not commit

Not "can not," just "will not."

You would never go to a protest?

Most people above the age of 30 are very unlikely to go to a protest. Between 18 and 30, they are just unlikely.

There is no one size fits all security best practices, you should analyze how much you are at risk before deciding what safe practices would be useful.

Correct.

It’s a bit presumptuous to imply this personal choice is the default or expected norm, given the importance of peaceful protests and the like as part of the civil discourse.

I’m sure are right about the numbers, most people won’t go to a protest. But I very much want to live in a country where people can peacefully protest without fear of having their digital lives completely by the government.

And a protest is just one example situation of how this can be abused to trample on privacy rights.

Exactly.

Knowing how to set it to require a passcode feels like absolutely important information if you're a political dissident, a journalist with valuable sources, if you live or are visiting somewhere where the police will harass you (or worse) for your private lifestyle, if you're employed by a corporation with trade secrets the government wants to spy on, or of course if you're just a straight-up criminal.

But if you don't fall into these and similar categories, then it seems totally fine to rely on biometrics.

Because this isn't at all a case where just because I have nothing to hide, means I'm cool with eroding privacy protections. The point is that you can protect yourself when you do have something to hide. But me relying on convenient biometric unlocking isn't preventing those who need to disable it from doing so. It's not even making them seem more suspicious, since my iPhone asks me to verify my passcode every couple weeks anyways, or every time it restarts.

When it comes to consumer tech, convenience beats everything else, period.

so this is subtle and persuasive rhetoric .. let's look more closely.. "most people" divides the public into "us vs them" .. "factor arrests" immediately and implicitly makes the dividing line into "law abiding citizens" and their implied complement, criminals.. "can happily" inserts an emotional component into the divisive classification.. "use biometric unlock features" seals the statement, firmly cementing "law abiding us people" against "those other people who obviously have something to hide"

in short - no. A broader view of human nature, and the relationship of an individual adult versus the state or corporate status quo .. says that no, an individual person with rights and privacy does not have to acquiesce to draconian surveillance state record keeping.. and asserting your rights to not participate does not make you a member of the criminal "them" class.

Secondly, snide and smug assertions made in public that do associate privacy and individual rights with criminals, might be made by exactly those who are promoting these kinds of systems, for profit.

summary - no.

This analysis is numerology.

“Those who are staying in there are not staying in there for noble causes. They’re criminals,” University President Tom J told the local newspaper.