The worst trait for a social movement is a Face for the movement. Personalizing an age, such as an age of surveillance, organizes, at the same time, a body for inspection — laying out the rows and columns in order. What has happened with “privacy” is a short list of public figures sponsor tools (often the same tools), and whether those tools are necessary to security becomes a minor problem. Here the humanities has a task: analyzing how we perceive a problem and how the perception is itself a problem.
To narrow this inquiry further, take professionals in journalism. The data security narrative has been that privacy is a science with rules for securing information. The matter is simply hiding information methods, and we need just wait for an authority to say, “Here are the rules [or an amendment to a rule].” Everyone behaves similarly. “Use PGP, Tails, Signal and Red Phone and VPN and OTR and F and G and H and J.”
This is the easy way out and the most dangerous perception of privacy issues. Notice how the movement functions: sharing technology tools in waves, starting from public figures and covering their followers in neat, succinct intervals. Government hunting expeditions are like firing from a helicopter into a field of buffalo. The buffalo run together in one direction.