> "ask whether or not they close the bathroom door (or the stall in a public restroom) when they're taking a shit"
This is a pretty bad question and a hyperbole. Most people would want no one (including people who they are usually intimate with) to watch them defecate. And that is not the same thing as government snooping on its own citizens. Arguments for massive surveillance given by governments is not so much about invading the personal privacy of people than it is about protecting national "security" or preventing "terrorism". For this reason, few people are going to get convinced if you equate the privacy to use the lavatory without anyone watching to the privacy of being able to communicate without the government monitoring you. The best argument against massive surveillance is the one that Snowden gave during a Reddit AMA:
> "Some might say "I don't care if they violate my privacy; I've got
nothing to hide." Help them understand that they are misunderstanding
the fundamental nature of human rights. Nobody needs to justify why
they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one
seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't
give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you. More
simply, the majority cannot vote away the natural rights of the
minority.
> "But even if they could, help them think for a moment about what they're
saying. Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because
you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care
about free speech because you have nothing to say.
> "A free press benefits more than just those who read the paper."
This is a pretty bad question and a hyperbole. Most people would want no one (including people who they are usually intimate with) to watch them defecate. And that is not the same thing as government snooping on its own citizens. Arguments for massive surveillance given by governments is not so much about invading the personal privacy of people than it is about protecting national "security" or preventing "terrorism". For this reason, few people are going to get convinced if you equate the privacy to use the lavatory without anyone watching to the privacy of being able to communicate without the government monitoring you. The best argument against massive surveillance is the one that Snowden gave during a Reddit AMA:
> "Some might say "I don't care if they violate my privacy; I've got nothing to hide." Help them understand that they are misunderstanding the fundamental nature of human rights. Nobody needs to justify why they "need" a right: the burden of justification falls on the one seeking to infringe upon the right. But even if they did, you can't give away the rights of others because they're not useful to you. More simply, the majority cannot vote away the natural rights of the minority.
> "But even if they could, help them think for a moment about what they're saying. Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.
> "A free press benefits more than just those who read the paper."