> Through history people were able to eventually overthrow much more brutal oppressors.

They were more brutal because they substituted brutality in lieu of these sorts of technological innovations. They couldn't spy on everyone, so they had to crucify the few opponents they could definitively catch (or some sacrificial lambs, when they couldn't.)

Not to mention, it's much easier to overthrow a brutal dictator. Your government is killing your friends, drafting your family into the military, and sending your coworkers to work camps? Hell yeah, we won't stand for that! But if your government is just quietly watching, while your family is sitting at home, with food in their fridge - will you pick up a weapon to fight against that regime? Will your friends, family, neighbors?

Well the good thing about not living in a dictatorship is that you have freedom of expression and freedom of association. So there really isn't any need to resort to violence, at least in principle.

You are right to point out that the majority of people are just comfortable enough, struggling to pay for debts they incurred in one way or another and generally have no incentive to fight totalitarian overreach of the state.

Unfortunately the institutions for the indoctrination of the young are set up in a way by now, that they are very good at producing hyper-focused well-working replaceable cogs for industry, together with their Ayn Rand reading, libertarian overlords in one nice package. They do all that, while setting you up for a life of indebted servitude, if you don't happen to choose a profession that requires you to be highly compliant with the current system to be successful.

So I guess if there is one thing to fix it would be education, a properly educated general public would hopefully be less apathetic and compliant than it is today. Technology has the potential to make education much more widely available and independent of having to assemble in one place and be subjected to abuse and brainwashing of authority figures.

> ... libertarian overlords ...

Ok, go ahead and square that with the operation of the government today. I'm pretty confident you will find it impossible to construct a convincing argument.

That was a stupid choice of words... What I meant to say was neo-liberal, I guess. Since the whole comment is mostly hyperbole anyways, I will let it stand as is.

Well thanks for not doubling down. FYI, "Ayn Rand" and "neo-liberal" doesn't really belong in the same breath either - I'm guessing you've never actually read anything she has written. This might be a moment where you consider the body of knowledge that your opinions rest on, and the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".

Name one thing accomplished by the occupy movement. If anything, they were a distraction from the worst culprits of the unholy corporate-government alliance.

Well, they made a nice few-second appearance in Google's Zeitgeist 2011 video, and also spawned some fun memes (#OccupyJupiter comes to my mind). That must be worth something. </sarcasm>

I personally question the goal of fighting it. More and more I begin to believe that it's "privacy vs. progress of mankind - choose one". Privacy for privacy's sake is not something I think is important - the problem is always with the ways lack of it could be abused. I can't see how we can save privacy without getting rid of computers - after all, even if you reduce number of sensors, the remaining void can be filled back by throwing more computing power at data you can get.

It isn't really an issue of privacy, it is an issue of consolidated power through a monopoly on certain types of information.

It isn't defeatism when you recognize your present course of action as being ineffective, and look for alternatives. I'd also like to know what, in your opinion, the occupy movement accomplished (aside from demonstrating how ineffective slacktivism is).