The best argument I ever heard was:
"Would you give up your right to free speech just because you have nothing important to say? No? Then why would you give up your right to privacy just because you have nothing to hide?"
"Would you give up your right to free speech just because you have nothing important to say? No? Then why would you give up your right to privacy just because you have nothing to hide?"
It raises the important point: of course you don't care about privacy now while you have nothing to hide. You should care about it because one day you might.
It might be a stalker, a corrupt government official or policeman, someone at work who is competitive with you, you might be a whistleblower or learn a family secret that would damage your reputation (lets say, your father is a pedophile) .... all these things happen to completely "regular" people who until that point had "nothing to hide" and they end up needing or wishing to hide them in at least some circumstances.
Without privacy, you, your family, or anyone you are in contact with becomes an easier target.
A stronger argument should have tried to explain how this violates the constitution:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-c...
Pointing out that a weakened encryption is analogous to getting a wiretapping order for everyone without a cause is a stronger argument.
I agree, the EFF should have elaborated more on concrete examples of how it violates the Constitution.
The potential space for bad policy is gargantuan and hard to explore without additional hints or context. Given that enumerated in rhetoric, tech company policy, recent events and the bill itself:
It may create potential for witch hunts. Think of some recent conspiracy theories here.
To censor speech which comes close to looking "suspicious" whomever is the one to define this. This is most likely the government.
It may push companies to use filters which over-censor speech and it may be impossible to get a remedy at the scale at which they operate.
Trolls could abuse mechanisms to silence opinions they disagree with. If a government decides to smear someone's reputation through a coordinated campaign, they could make the argument they are a danger to society and pressure platforms to silence them.
* Indicate that you have a right * Which you probably don't have a pressing need for at the moment * But the lack of a need in the immediate future doesn't mean you won't ever have a need for it
The only real difference between the two, as far as I can tell, is the actual right you're not-using-but-still-protecting.
What am I missing?