There seem to me to be a few problematic unexamined assumptions:

1. People would only use privacy-enhancing technology to escape criminal investigation or other state surveillance, not in order to protect their privacy from commercial surveillance;
2. People like me, who already use the equivalent privacy-enhancing technologies, are likely to be engaged in illegal or "subversive" activities;
3. People who are engaged in serious subversive or illegal activities haven't already got at least as good technology for secret and anonymous communication as we have, for putting in FreedomBox;
4. Most people in the world have the same attitudes about privacy you observe in the people you know, so that it is unnecessary to present any actual data about people's attitudes, here in this society or anywhere at all, because mere assertion based on personal experience is just as good.

I think all of those unexamined assumptions are false. Revision would make the essay stronger by ending dependence on these false assumptions. I think a different and clearer argument necessarily results.