I hate to write crappy comments, but my general reaction to this can be summed up with ":-("

There are terrible changes in the government that feel inevitable. Whenever these changes are beaten/voted down, we all celebrate that we've won, then just a couple years later, they are reintroduced. This seems to repeat until it passes. At this point it feels like our complete loss of privacy is inevitable, and that at once terrifies me and deeply depresses me. There's nothing that I can do to prevent this. Not in the long haul.

:-(

It's not inevitable. It will happen if we let it happen.

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." J.S. Mill

Further - I would say it needs to happen. Not because I'm excited about the loss of privacy - but because until we lose that privacy, encryption won't become something relevant to the average person. Encryption is a solution that expects "bad actors". When government succeeds in overtaking privacy, better encryption will prevail.

One could argue that the (U.S.) government has already succeeded in overtaking privacy.

You know what really grinds my gears?

Trotting out the old trope of a "security vs privacy" dichotomy. It's not true. It doesn't stand up to the most rudimentary analysis. But we hear it, unchallenged, all the time. What about security measures that increase privacy, like door locks, tall fences, or thick doors on airplane cockpits? Security and privacy are fundamentally aligned. That's why even in the US 4th "privacy" Amendment the wording is about the right of people to be SECURE in their person and belongings.

The truth is, what we're offered is reduced security AND privacy. I've never figured out what we're getting in exchange.

Your personal security is unrelated to the security in that argument. The idea is that the nation can't protect itself if there are secrets it lacks access to.

They want to spy on (potential) foreign forces within the country. To do so, the privacy of your home would be sacrificed in the name of the security of your country.

Usually in software privacy depends on security, which then depends on quality. That's how I usually see it at least.

privacy --> security --> quality

Not always of course, but often.

Equating crypto with armaments does nobody any favors. If crypto is an armament, then the banks can be said to be wielding guns at the criminals who are forever stressing their networks and trying to get in, or even their customers, who require a more-than-mathematically strong peace of mind that their money is safe from theft.