Very interesting, and a little bit scary, but it seems to me you're worried more about Bush-style threats to constitutionally protected rights than the invasion of privacy that allows them. Looking up Hitler and Marx shouldn't be something you need to hide, and obviously following people's library and browsing habits to crack down on that sort of thing is bad. But it seems that the 1984 threat to privacy is obvious enough (although the specifics, like google logging your searches) to be not so scary as the idea that the FBI easily got your unlisted number. And of course, the most frightening thing of all will be if you get an advertisement in the mail for Valkyrie from Blockbuster, or start getting a lot of spam advertising identity theft protection.

On a completely separate note, I think a major argument for privacy follows from the illogic of your other examples (anti-gay marriage, squashing unions, etc.). Even if the cost of doing these things is low, there isn't really much benefit. Stopping gay marriage isn't going to keep gay people from doing what they want, squashing unions only works if everyone does it (and the market will insure someone doesn't), and snooping around the internet will turn up millions of people looking for Hitler images or check out socialist texts before it will catch an even semi-competent terrorist. It is one thing to sacrifice some right in order to be safer, but another to sacrifice for the mere illusion of protection.

-- HamiltonFalk - 17 Dec 2008