The surveillance imposed on us today is worse than in the Soviet Union.
Soviets? They are dead and buried. The time for alliances against them had passed. Virtue-signals (or should I say Liberal-signals?) of freedom-lovers can become stroboscopic, but there will be no effect - is they who are on the menu today, not Communists.
For freedom and democracy’s sake, we need to eliminate most of it.
No, "we" don't.
I need money to live. And I have no intentions of not living just to protect someone's right to secretly download kiddie porn or "resist" the government by liking shit on Facebook.
I'd rather drag people to the prison, than live on the streets because I can't pay off my mortgage.
I'd rather guard the death camp, than slowly rot because I can't afford medicine.
What use do I have for freedom and democracy? Neither pays the bills.
And it is I who is "we". There are more of us than of Stallmans. Be it voting or fighting - the outcome had been decided already. Money trumps the freedom (pun is fully intended).
Then again, when a system is crucial for modern life, like buses and trains, users ignore the terms because refusal of consent is too painful to consider.
To restore privacy, we must stop surveillance before it even asks for consent.
... Companies tend to lose their scruples when that is profitable.
That they do. And if surveillance is profitable (which it is), is it not obvious that companies will "lose their scruples" when it comes to stopping it?
Is it not obvious that they will use "a system crucial for modern life" (money) to make it "too painful to consider" stopping surveillance?
How will "radical" suggestion fare then? And how can we even call it "radical", if all it suggests is begging the very same people who made surveillance to stop?