Here we go again with Bruce Schneier, the lapdog tech media's favourite security guru, who always rants about government surveillance as the worst thing first, then Google and Facebook surveillance as the next worse thing at a distant second, and implies we all need privacy lockdowns with "transparency for me and not for thee" -- and never has a solution to the evils that prompt the actions taken on the basis of "the surveillance state" in the first place.
China, Anonymous, the ambitious Paula Broadwell who brought down a respected general -- well, these are all problems we can think about some other day. They aren't really threats. We should only think about our privacy and the implications for the evil security state pursuing these threats for ourselves.
How can we opt out from the ubiquitous Schneier?
The problem with him is that he never concedes the more alarming situation for our rights, particularly to online freedom of association and freedom of expression, if we allow to rule the Chinese Communist Party, which is bent on undermining our nation, Anonymous anarchists who take down sites they don't like and dox people and harm their privacy, and selfish ambitious women who have extra-marital affairs and open up the head of the CIA to blackmail by hostile foreign intelligence agencies.
It's not like the security state that Schneier always thinks has to be undermined with his shenanigans and alarmists agitprop pieces is in fact the same thing as China, or anarchists or selfish vixens. It's in fact a liberal democratic state that ensures human rights for all, so that neither China, anarchists, or careerists can undermine good governance that ensures people's rights.
So there has to be a balance, and we don't get it from him, as at the end of the day, he has nothing to say about the problem for privacy that comes from the Chinese Communist Party or the anarchist Anonymous movement, which really is sinister in its desire to seize power or even the extrajudicial harassment that someone like Broadwell represents.