Ask HN: Since CitizenFour, have you changed the way you conduct yourself online?

Correct. But at least it is "local" and not GCHQ/NSA oriented.

No. I have no need to. There are better things to do with my time.

It's like saying I won't drive my car on the street because the police are watching you. But the police are looking for bad guys, not me. I'm not a bad guy.

I see so many people trying to block the police from doing their work finding bad guys. They don't want road checks for drunk drivers but then complain when a drunk driver kills someone. They don't want license plate scans for criminals and drug trafficking yet complain when they aren't caught.

They don't want the NSA scanning internet traffic and email yet complain they didn't catch the Boston bombers and others ahead of time while actively protesting the same thing.

I fear people like Snowden more than anything else.

His point is the last half. He's not a "person of interest" in these surveillance activities so it doesn't concern him; and it shouldn't.

That was exactly my point, too. You shouldn't care about other people's rights just because it affects you. Then you are those people anyway. You should care when it doesn't affect you too.

For instance, you should care that the police is very brutal to black people, even if you are not black and the police acts much better around white people.

Also, he's wrong. It does affect him. All data is analyzed. That includes his data, too. He's just of the attitude that "as long as me or any member of my family which I care about never says anything too critical about the government for the rest of our lives, then we're all good".

In my opinion he's wrong that he'll never be critical of his government. Obama won't rule forever, even if he does like him, and I assume he'll witness at least a few other governments during the rest of his life. Chances are he will become critical of his government, especially if things turn much worse (as the trend is right now). What if the government intends to cut his social benefits? What if the government introduces mandatory army enlisting? And so on and so on. Nobody can stay "non-critical" of the government for too long.

It's also wrong because it's self-censorship: "If I keep my head down, nothing bad will happen to me." The problem is when most people think like that, that's how you end up with tyranny. When little opposition exists, those in power start abusing it.

    They don't want road checks for drunk drivers but then
    complain when a drunk driver kills someone. They don't
    want license plate scans for criminals and drug trafficking
    yet complain when they aren't caught.

I think the problem here is not that people don't want police to do those things, it's the belief that the power, once granted, will be abused. Drunk driving checks to catch drunk drivers are a good thing, but what about when a cop forces you out of your car because he didn't like your attitude? License plate scans are also good for catching criminals, but what about if the police store the data forever and tie it to personal IDs of people? Would you want the police to have a record forever of everywhere you've gone?

This is the problem with saying you have no need to. You assume you have already thought of every possible case when in fact, that's impossible to do. The most important part in the fight for personal privacy is in protecting the freedoms we have from potential abuse.