The author is a bit uncharitable. "I have nothing to hide" usually is a shorthand for "it would be imprudent and inconvenient to dedicate my limited time and resources to an abstract good like privacy. This would not be the case if I had something illegal or reputation-ruining to hide." Nobody denies the value of privacy, but practicality beats purity in the eyes of a person who doesn't have a particular ideological conviction.
It can also mean: I prefer the police catching murderers. I'm fine when wife cheaters get caught in the drag net.
Privacy advocates never admit that there is not only a "next" government abusing surveillance, but also a "current" one, which uses surveillance for beneficial purposes.
I am a privacy advocate, and also am disappointed at how narrow minded some of the arguments of privacy advocates are.
"Banning encrypted chat will just mean the bad people moved to banned platforms". Perhaps, but some bad people have to operate where victims are (Facebook stalkers, eBay cons, ...)
"Police should be forced to just do... actual police work."
It's pretty reasonably for police to want to increase the chances and speed of resolution.
We should champion and defend privacy, in spite of the good reasons to weaken it. There's no need to strawmen.
Fair point.
Right, but that practicality is predicated on the ability to switch to a more privacy-focused posture later on. And the point of the blog post is, when you need it, it won't be there when you reach for it.
Not arguing with that specific claim, but the author claims to hold a "special kind of contempt" for ordinary people making practical day-to-day choices. That attitude is much more hostile.