I don't think we are really in a terrible place. In so many ways the world is better than it was. But we are kind of blind to the problems we are creating. Read this.
I like Maciej's talks, they're always entertaining, but at the end of them I always feel not quite satisfied. He is good at presenting well known problems in amusing ways but rarely identifies solutions beyond the hopelessly vague (like "we should all think about stuff more").
He is also utterly resistant to giving large companies any credit at all. Google and Facebook have moved the needle on strong cryptography and anti-surveillance tools more than any other groups, but in these talks they're always the bad guys because they make money through advertising instead of credit cards (which are legally linked to your real name and address: far far worse for privacy than ads).
A big part of this talk boils down to, the US Government can order American companies to undo any protections they themselves create. But this is hardly worth commenting on. It is a political problem and the only solution is for political candidates to appear that manage to appeal to large numbers of voters whilst simultaneously being strong on civil rights and shutting down surveillance systems. Neither Clinton nor Trump seem very likely to do that, but nor did any other candidates. The issue matters to people but it matters a lot less than other issues.
There are two point I would dispute. First, I do give large tech companies (and the NSA!) credit for being internally heterogeneous, and doing good things along with bad.
Second, it would be ridiculous to give Facebook or Google credit for making anti-surveillance tools. That would be like praising tobacco companies for inventing a better cigarette filter.
Given that this is the way technology has evolved independent of any one firm, is it really fair to compare them to tobacco companies?
Raising awareness is important - and urgent - work. These problems are not "well known" outside of the HN/tech bubble.
> in amusing ways
Also important, as it is much more memorable than the exhaustive clinical delineation offered by (e.g.) Pro Publica
> but rarely identifies solutions beyond the hopelessly vague
If you don't have a solution to what you see as a critical problem, do you wllow in despair? Or do you raise awareness of the problem in the hope that, individually or collectively, others will devise solutions?
Google's security team has its hands full just shipping a browser that doesn't unlock the computers of all its users for anyone who can write a heap overflow exploit (which is why you should probably prefer Chrome over other browsers). They are not in fact moving the needle on the problem of protecting their own data from hostile governments.
It can be very hard, and it involves a consistent questioning of authority. Including the authority of ourselves, and the authority we hold over others.
We can have modern medicine, but we have to trust the people researching it. We can have modern robots, but we have to trust the people building them.
Fear is a great way to prevent people from questioning. But if we learn to question our fear itself, it can be useful to have been afraid.