Presumably, this person is airing frustration with common responses to privacy oriented discussions he or she has experienced as participant and/or vicariously. He or she has characterized them ending in ad homenims, whereby the privacy minded individual is construed as politically or intellectually unmoored, similar to Alex Jones.
Spedru posits the covert and exposed deviants within companies, that we've exchanged our data with, are another style of entity (besides state actors) that we ought to strive to deprive of access to that data.
At least, that's as charitably as I can characterize the comment.
Yes. This is exactly what I meant. Didn't mean to come off as obscure, sorry, I'm a little out of it and English isn't my best language on a good day. I meant to tack a “distributed” onto that “panopticon”. A bunch of perverts scattered around tech companies might make for a convincing “actor” to bring up to ordinary people who think talking about government agencies is too crazy-sounding. As for the intelligence bit, I mean to say, “engineers are typically high-IQ, high-IQ people get away with crimes, imagine how many creeps have gotten away with this sort of thing and we'll never know”.
That how smart people can get away with these things and employees can see your images could be a wake up call for taking privacy concerns seriously I think
It's not really clear to me what you are saying exactly.