the whole plan is to get him over here and then kill him or let him die of neglect.

Does the uk not have a law against executions and if so would the not be breaking said law by extraditing him.

Regardless of any judicial or legal red tape preventing that extradition, are we seriously operating under the assumption that the United States government would execute him?

Well, can't send him there then, right?

I once asked a friend if he trusted the lock on his phone (brand new iPhone 15 Pro Max, latest and greatest). He told me he did. I asked him if I could use his phone while it was locked, and he told me "No, I don't trust you. You would probably hack it or something." That statement says two things:

1. He only cares about attacks on privacy on a personal level, which is the mental flaw lots of people have.

2. He doesn't actually trust the lock on his phone, but refuses to admit it.

By the way, here's a few fun gimmicks you can pull on iPhone users:

1. See if you can swipe left to view widgets on the lock screen. I was able to get someone's address this way. He told me the whole time "There's nothing you can find there." and then afterwards said "Ah, crap."

2. If there is a lock screen mini widget (under the time) for a clock or related feature, tap on it and it will open the clock app. You can also get there if you can swipe down to access control center if the "timer" button is enabled there. You can then make it look like you unlocked their phone, and start reading off their alarm names. This one has freaked out a lot of people.

3. If they realize how you got there and try disabling control center access on the lock screen (as they should, FaceID is fast enough people!), you can see if you can access Siri and say "View my alarms".

There is a difference between having nothing to hide and not closing the door when talking a shit

Don't forget the people that tried to blow the whistle on the NSA prior to Snowden

Funny thing about ancap libertarianism is that they've correctly identified that power can lead to tyranny, but they're completely oblivious to the power that corporatism (the conclusion of lassez-faire capitalism) results in.

States always wind up being run by self-interested psychopaths.

That's not a "flaw;" it's the fundamental nature of the concept.

Lol lots of people think that no entity has the right to monopolize violence against a population.

Unfortunately it's usually self-interested psychopaths who seek out and obtain those positions, especially since you need to be a bit psychotic to do what's required to get there.

The state is kinda bad and it's not only Right-Libertarians who say that. Even so, leaking documents is not always bad. Like, the Abu Ghraib leak was objectively good.

Oh boy, here comes the political drama. Can we not do this?

any state is bad because taxes are evil

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Google, show me this man's balls, please

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

Inb4 some Quebec person comes in and complains about “Quebecians”

Quebecians

😂

I have rules about hiding things too. A couple of them are not having creepy weirdos trying to spy on me when I'm making love to my wife, or listening in on deeply private conversations behind closed doors. But for some reason certain people seem to think we don't deserve that essential liberty now, despite it being guaranteed in the Constitution.

Or so you are told by people unwilling to be under strict oversight from independent authorities.

"I do this for good reasons, trust me" is not a valid argument.

Is that justification for spying on civilians?

Seeing as this was posted in c/privacy, I believe the intent was rather to say "actually that whole 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' premise government espionage programs enjoy thrusting on their citizens is patently bullshit, and they know it, as despite saying it to you while spying on you they make it illegal to spy on them."

This post actually illustrates the opposite of your interpretation. Satire generally extrapolates on the actual real events with logical evolutions that demonstrate that the original premise was laughable at best, and at worst creates a double standard.