> They haven’t lived in a context where they need to care.

You might believe you don't need opsec, and then new laws are passed, or your national supreme court overturns the case that gave you your rights, or someone invades; and now suddenly you're wanted for anything from overstaying a visa, outright murder, or simply existing.

USA, right now, peoples lives are being destroyed because the wrong people got their data. Lethal consequences exist in Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran.

Certain professions per definition: Journalists, Lawyers, Intelligence, Military.

Certain Ethnicities. (Jewish, Somali) ; Faiths...

It doesn't need to be quite this dramatic though. But you might accidentally have broken some laws and don't even know about it yet. Caught a fish? Released a fish? Give the wrong child a bowl of soup [1]. Open the door, refuse to open the door. Signed a register; didn't sign a register. The list of actual examples is endless. The less people know about you, the less they can prosecute.

[1] A flaw in the Dutch Asylum Emergency Measures Act (2025) that would have criminalized offering even a bowl of soup to an undocumented person. The Council of State confirmed this reading. A follow-up bill was needed to fix it.

▲

closeparen 16 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no world where a totalitarian government’s law enforcement ambitions on some object-level question are thwarted by the same government’s enforcement of privacy law. Countries with GDPR that are thinking of rounding up and kicking out the refugees know perfectly well who and where the refugees are.

▲

Kim_Bruning 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're not entirely wrong; ultimately if they put enough resources towards it they can probably catch quite a number of people. But governments have limited resources and really don't track everyone all the time. Not even in 2026 are they able to do that yet. It helps if you maintain some level of opsec. If they really want to get you, they can get close, but see eg Ed Snowden; who managed to stay ahead of the US government just long enough to reach relative safety (FSVO).

▲

nandomrumber 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Snowden’s experience doesn’t generalise to, well, anyone really.

	▲	Kim_Bruning 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, I wouldn't personally recommend single-handedly taking on the most powerful nation on earth, myself. But turns out that if your opsec is decent, and even using mostly publicly available tools like Snowden did, you might survive even that. In the nuanced case, normal people applying more normal opsec can handle more normal things, would seem to follow.

▲

gzread 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The law is irrelevant in that case but the actual situation is not. If people have never put their personal information online, the bad government can't get it from online. A new phone coming out during the time of the bad government, that says the government requires you to enter your name and address, will not be received as well as if it comes out during good government times.

▲

nandomrumber 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> will not be received as well as if it comes out during good government times.

What bearing does that have on anything.

	▲	fc417fc802 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Making the point that people tend to engage in short term thinking. The reception of the same law, product, or practice will be colored by the current government as opposed to potential future ones.