It's a poorly asked proposition.

From the poll: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/...) "Q: What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats) or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy)?"

That's not really an a/b question.

The real question in my mind whether we believe that every corner of our nation and our lives is a small part of a warzone, in a "cyber war".

That's the disconnect between people on HN and the NSA/military types. They are playing a different game.

Privacy is like freedom. If you don't value it for its own sake, you're unlikely to see any reason not to sacrifice it for the sake of security (perceived or otherwise).

Privacy is freedom of thought.

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/berlin-keynote.... https://benjamin.sonntag.fr/Moglen-at-Re-Publica-Freedom-of-...

It's a right too.

You can point them to the horror stories from people who have been doxxed: identity theft, ruined credit, random stalkers at their front door.

Remind them that the government is composed of individuals, like police officers that stalk the exes they abused through phone records.

I find Glenn Greenwalds explanation at TED quite compelling : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk

The etymology is important. Private vs. public is the difference between the individual and the group. What makes us individuals is that we exist independently from the public. If our actions, thoughts, opinions, and histories are public, we cease to be individuals. In practice, that means that differences between people will become a thing of the past either due to being "corrected" by the public or when we feel we must change ourselves to conform to fit in with the public.

Ed. Snowden summed it up nicely IMO with this:

"Your rights matter because you never know when you're going to need them."

privacy = rights