Luxury Surveillance(reallifemag.com)
reallifemag.com
Luxury Surveillance
https://reallifemag.com/luxury-surveillance/
59 comments
No, it's not amazing - just read all the i-need-facebook-because excuses all over this site, or the i-use-chrome-because, or the i-use-amazon-because, i-use-gmail-because... They're impossible to miss, and even on "hacker" news the apathy and myopia is rampant.
People having different parameters than you do to their cost-benefit analysis doesn't make them myopic and you somehow more insightful.
If those parameters are “short term” focused at the expense of long term success, how isn’t that myopic? How isn’t refusal to do the same insight?
I don't think this is a case of short term vs long term. Due to marketing the value of surveillance products seem obvious whereas the downsides sound like techno babble to the average user.
This is a straw man argument. GP is talking about valuing outcomes differently.
Short-term informs long-term, and like it or not, most people aren't super accurate precogs. Short term is the default. Long-term has to be trained and requires both experience and a lot of effort to develop and keep accurate.
Just apathetic?
> Very few people are even able to consider just how much of how they view the world is on account of the way they have been taught.
I'd posit that the people who think this does not apply to them actually demonstrate this just as much as anyone else. We all make subconscious decisions about what we are going to follow and accept versus challenge because if you challenged everything you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. How do I know I _really_ need to eat breakfast, or take a shower, or go to work today? Most of the time we operate on autopilot and we save our mental capital for decisions where we think we need it.
And we all prioritize the importance of decisions differently, and that's ok. For some of us, that important decision is, should I buy a device that let's a big corp spy on me. For others it might be, should I call my mother who I got in a fight with yesterday. For everyone with their own stack ranked list of priorities, other people's look "wrong".
Tldr, some people know they are being surveilled in since capacity and do not care, and that's ok.
I'd posit that the people who think this does not apply to them actually demonstrate this just as much as anyone else. We all make subconscious decisions about what we are going to follow and accept versus challenge because if you challenged everything you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. How do I know I _really_ need to eat breakfast, or take a shower, or go to work today? Most of the time we operate on autopilot and we save our mental capital for decisions where we think we need it.
And we all prioritize the importance of decisions differently, and that's ok. For some of us, that important decision is, should I buy a device that let's a big corp spy on me. For others it might be, should I call my mother who I got in a fight with yesterday. For everyone with their own stack ranked list of priorities, other people's look "wrong".
Tldr, some people know they are being surveilled in since capacity and do not care, and that's ok.
I'm totally fine personally with other people doing what they want to do. Buy a phone knowing you are being spied on.
But do you forget that we did not know we were being spied on. Some of us suspected perhaps, but this only became blatant with the Snowden revelations. The point is that this is not an open, free-sharing system - it is plainly deceitful, designed to extract our most personal information, to provide it to a corporation/governance structure whether we want it or not.
And now we see the long path we are on coming to fruition - we will have to have a phone, a vax passport to simply get into shops. We are facing a world like East Germany, but on techno-steroids.
So, fine, choose what you like. But do you not think a line is crossed when the techno-snooping becomes mandatory, with smart phones, smart tvs, smart meters, etc? Must I hand over all of my information to what is shaping up to be a fascist (government+corporate) governance structure?
Most people around here would say yes.
But do you forget that we did not know we were being spied on. Some of us suspected perhaps, but this only became blatant with the Snowden revelations. The point is that this is not an open, free-sharing system - it is plainly deceitful, designed to extract our most personal information, to provide it to a corporation/governance structure whether we want it or not.
And now we see the long path we are on coming to fruition - we will have to have a phone, a vax passport to simply get into shops. We are facing a world like East Germany, but on techno-steroids.
So, fine, choose what you like. But do you not think a line is crossed when the techno-snooping becomes mandatory, with smart phones, smart tvs, smart meters, etc? Must I hand over all of my information to what is shaping up to be a fascist (government+corporate) governance structure?
Most people around here would say yes.
Actually, most people around here wouldn't say anything because this topic isn't important enough to them. They glance at the comment and move on.
Is this more unacceptable than people dying in a building collapse in Miami, or children starving to death in third world countries, or a loved one passing away, or someone being rude to someone else?
It's truly in the eye of the beholder.
Is this more unacceptable than people dying in a building collapse in Miami, or children starving to death in third world countries, or a loved one passing away, or someone being rude to someone else?
It's truly in the eye of the beholder.
There are bad things all over the world, deaths, crashes, collapses, etc.
But what does that have to do with technologists working hard to eliminate freedoms and privacy, not just for themselves but for everyone? Do technologists have the truth, do they really know what is better for everyone else?
But what does that have to do with technologists working hard to eliminate freedoms and privacy, not just for themselves but for everyone? Do technologists have the truth, do they really know what is better for everyone else?
I don't disagree with your general point, just nitpicking on this particularly, because I think it might be eye opening to consider
> Most people around here would say yes.
> Most people around here would say yes.
But are you on the path of self-liberation yourself? 'The police man in your head' doesn't need the vestiges of technology to take control over your life. Just having children to care for makes being wild like an animal near impossible.
Who is in control? Who wrote the narrative of your life? Who decided to believe in that story?
Who is in control? Who wrote the narrative of your life? Who decided to believe in that story?
These are great questions.
I am absolutely on the path to self-liberation - the policeman in my head is gone. Its been a work of years.
Why do you say wild animal? Are you a wild animal if someone doesn't tell you what to do? I think you need to check your assumptions. We are naturally joyful, trusting creatures, but this is used against us.
And having children personally made me double up my efforts. I needed to find answers - I didn't want to commit my children to automaton living.
I was not in control - I was not the author of my life. I was provided a story, and that is now rejected. I write my own story - and fyi here is a good essay that captures how I feel:
https://kateofgaia.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/behold-a-whit...
The job we have - as I see it - is to act according to what we know. There is a big difference between what you know and what you *think* you know. Eg, do you know your date of birth? No, you do not. You do not remember it - you only know what you are told. Knowing is personally verifying! Say what you see and don't lie to yourself or others.
If you do not personally verify the stories you are told, you will be 'lost in stories'. Someone else (not you) is controlling the narrative. Technology is just the latest iteration of the stories - we also have government, religion, law, our 'educated' peers, etc.
I am absolutely on the path to self-liberation - the policeman in my head is gone. Its been a work of years.
Why do you say wild animal? Are you a wild animal if someone doesn't tell you what to do? I think you need to check your assumptions. We are naturally joyful, trusting creatures, but this is used against us.
And having children personally made me double up my efforts. I needed to find answers - I didn't want to commit my children to automaton living.
I was not in control - I was not the author of my life. I was provided a story, and that is now rejected. I write my own story - and fyi here is a good essay that captures how I feel:
https://kateofgaia.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/behold-a-whit...
The job we have - as I see it - is to act according to what we know. There is a big difference between what you know and what you *think* you know. Eg, do you know your date of birth? No, you do not. You do not remember it - you only know what you are told. Knowing is personally verifying! Say what you see and don't lie to yourself or others.
If you do not personally verify the stories you are told, you will be 'lost in stories'. Someone else (not you) is controlling the narrative. Technology is just the latest iteration of the stories - we also have government, religion, law, our 'educated' peers, etc.
I tried to say 'wild like an animal' to make a distinction from the familiar concept of a 'wild animal'.
A wild human animal is not domesticated and does not care about what society thinks is normal acceptable behavior. It treats feeling as equal with reason; both mere qualia to be either utilized or disregarded...
I'm sure naturalists will gladly heap entire dictionaries of verbage on what I'm trying to communicate: all explainable in an instant by an upredictable, fundamentally not-safe look in one's eyes.
A wild human animal is not domesticated and does not care about what society thinks is normal acceptable behavior. It treats feeling as equal with reason; both mere qualia to be either utilized or disregarded...
I'm sure naturalists will gladly heap entire dictionaries of verbage on what I'm trying to communicate: all explainable in an instant by an upredictable, fundamentally not-safe look in one's eyes.
You might have control preferences which are not shared across the population.
I would assume that control preferences form a distribution, mine one among many.
It sounds like you’re saying to not trust reason without evidence. For example, it’s reasonable to believe climate change exists because the news reports that climate scientists overwhelmingly state that it exists. With that knowledge, I may reason that the likelihood of that claim being wrong is little. Do I need to actually read all of their research to believe that?
I tend to think the issue is learning not to trust, not to grant unreserved trust to anything without the ability to either verify personally, or the issue at hand exists in an environment of shared verification, an environment where it is possible if not easy to verify and many do, which they then make public.
In addition, the issue of learning to live with uncertainty, being mature to the degree that unknowable answers and their questions simply set in an unknowable and ripe for exploitation category in one's mind. Grasping the power granted to others when they claim answers to unknowable questions is the true source of evil in this human society.
In addition, the issue of learning to live with uncertainty, being mature to the degree that unknowable answers and their questions simply set in an unknowable and ripe for exploitation category in one's mind. Grasping the power granted to others when they claim answers to unknowable questions is the true source of evil in this human society.
My thinking exactly! Do not extend trust - extend the attempt to try to verify, if you think the matter is important.
On living with uncertainty - this seems to be our major struggle. We can't say "I don't know", we would rather the life-raft of a comfortable story that assuages us. Most of us are both arrogant not because we know/have verified but because of stories/beliefs. It is hybris!
On living with uncertainty - this seems to be our major struggle. We can't say "I don't know", we would rather the life-raft of a comfortable story that assuages us. Most of us are both arrogant not because we know/have verified but because of stories/beliefs. It is hybris!
That only holds water if the news orgs are truthful
Quite unsubstantiated opinion piece, but if sticking the diversity/class oppression narrative is what we need to get the zeitgeist to recognize the harmfulness of centralized surveillance, I'm all for it.
Singling-out of smartwatches is a bit moot when smartphones are universally adopted though. Poor or rich, everyone has a telescreen, it's even worse than 1984.
Singling-out of smartwatches is a bit moot when smartphones are universally adopted though. Poor or rich, everyone has a telescreen, it's even worse than 1984.
These reality-denying identity politics followers are just as dangerous as the corporations pushing surveillance. The author lost me when they stared talking about trans people being more affected by surveillance than others.
It would be smart to let them battle it out first, if they oppose it too. Like the US waited for the Soviet Union to get seriously wounded before taking on the Nazis, because both were a threat.
It would be smart to let them battle it out first, if they oppose it too. Like the US waited for the Soviet Union to get seriously wounded before taking on the Nazis, because both were a threat.
Acknowledging the existence of trans people is not identity politics.
They are not "acknowledging the existence of trans people", they are shoehorning it into every unrelated discussion, in a manner that does both causes a disservice.
Nice strawman, only problem is that I wrote nothing of the sorts.
Every person who is trans deserves humane treatment. That said, what they are demanding is celebration and equation with “good as normal”. Unfortunately that’s not true, it’s a serious health problem that we should steer folks out of if at all possible.
The irony is that by supporting trans-rights they are actually doing people who identify as trans a disservice. There are a lot of documented problems with hormone blockers being miss-used, horror stories from gender re-assignment surgeries and (miss-)identification of little kids as trans. You support these people by helping them feel comfortable with their own biology, not with butchery! But I digress.
We shouldn't let people with these sorts of agendas dominate the discussion on such serious topics, we don't need another stripe on the LGBT flag to signify anti-surveillance. LGBT, trans-activism, feminism, etc. etc. are, and should remain disjoint from the fight against surveillance. If we start mixing in leftist-politics into the discussion we are weakening it by pushing away people who are not left-leaning or not in support of LGBT. By leaving anti-surveillance and pro-privacy activism pure and undiluted from left-right politics, we will have a greater ability to educate the masses.
We shouldn't let people with these sorts of agendas dominate the discussion on such serious topics, we don't need another stripe on the LGBT flag to signify anti-surveillance. LGBT, trans-activism, feminism, etc. etc. are, and should remain disjoint from the fight against surveillance. If we start mixing in leftist-politics into the discussion we are weakening it by pushing away people who are not left-leaning or not in support of LGBT. By leaving anti-surveillance and pro-privacy activism pure and undiluted from left-right politics, we will have a greater ability to educate the masses.
That is really the shocking thing at this point.
1984 has just been lapped by reality.
I think it is already a lost cause. We had the chance a decade ago to collectively show companies doing this is bad business. Instead we collectively did the opposite. You don't get a do over with this.
Maybe it is even related to this nonsense statistical thinking that has infected our group mind. Even when it doesn't apply at all, everything is a random draw from the urn.
"We just got unlucky on this draw from the urn with surveillance". Maybe next time we will have better luck even though there is no urn, draws or next time.
1984 has just been lapped by reality.
I think it is already a lost cause. We had the chance a decade ago to collectively show companies doing this is bad business. Instead we collectively did the opposite. You don't get a do over with this.
Maybe it is even related to this nonsense statistical thinking that has infected our group mind. Even when it doesn't apply at all, everything is a random draw from the urn.
"We just got unlucky on this draw from the urn with surveillance". Maybe next time we will have better luck even though there is no urn, draws or next time.
The thing is it doesn't have to be this way. Smartphones could be genuinely useful devices (take
e photos, communicate, GPS, hobby assistant, listen to music and podcasts) without the surveillance and the stripping of privacy and freedom.
Also, re: "class oppression". Like so many things, this is definitely about class. "Surveillance" is only half of "surveillance capitalism" ;)
Also, re: "class oppression". Like so many things, this is definitely about class. "Surveillance" is only half of "surveillance capitalism" ;)
> Like so many things, this is definitely about class. "Surveillance" is only half of "surveillance capitalism" ;)
I don't think traditional social class plays much in that particular equation. It's a really small group of people that have the resources and access to use the surveillance data in oppressive ways. Government officials, 9+ figure-company CEOs, poor activitists are all targets.
> The thing is it doesn't have to be this way.
Agreed, I'm not as pessimistic as others but we have to either solve the funding issue for OSS work, or come up with some other means of establishing trust in proprietary devices and software.
I don't think traditional social class plays much in that particular equation. It's a really small group of people that have the resources and access to use the surveillance data in oppressive ways. Government officials, 9+ figure-company CEOs, poor activitists are all targets.
> The thing is it doesn't have to be this way.
Agreed, I'm not as pessimistic as others but we have to either solve the funding issue for OSS work, or come up with some other means of establishing trust in proprietary devices and software.
These fitness trackers aren't just "fitness" trackers. They can tell if you're depressed. They can tell when you're sick. They can tell when you're having sex. Some have gyros that augment the heart rate sensor, so they basically know what you're doing with your hands at all times. Even ones without GPS can use Bluetooth to figure out where you are. And of course they upload it all to the internet to be stored and profiled for all time. We all know it's technically possible to have end-to-end encryption for the data, and so we all know the reason that they don't do it: to mine your data and create psychological profiles. Today it's just for ads, but tomorrow it could be for health insurance, credit scores, life insurance, some kind of "homeland security" or any number of things.
Fitbit might surveil you, but the data that the apple watch collects can stay just with yourself, not uploaded to any central cloud. And if you decide to sync healthkit data, it is end to end encrypted.
It's about as surveilled as you writing in your own private journal.
It's about as surveilled as you writing in your own private journal.
There is almost literally no way to verify that any of that is true.
It's a proprietary device, running proprietary (updateable) firmware, using proprietary tamper-resistant security chips for which the supply line and schematics are not publicly verified.
If my life depended on it...I'd crush my phone, laptop and every other wifi enabled device into dust immediately.
It's a proprietary device, running proprietary (updateable) firmware, using proprietary tamper-resistant security chips for which the supply line and schematics are not publicly verified.
If my life depended on it...I'd crush my phone, laptop and every other wifi enabled device into dust immediately.
You may be interested in watching Ivan Krstić’s BlackHat talk[0], in which he details the security of the iCloud infrastructure.
The use of physical one-way hash functions is involved.
[0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U&t=32m31s
The use of physical one-way hash functions is involved.
[0]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U&t=32m31s
I think that's a bit too paranoid of a take.
Apple loudly and publicly claim these facts (about data not leaving your device, and sync being end-to-end encrypted). It is one of the most scrutinised companies (see every -gate and even Google's 0-day blog), and they made Privacy their key differentiator.
They have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain from secretly tracking personal data.
Apple loudly and publicly claim these facts (about data not leaving your device, and sync being end-to-end encrypted). It is one of the most scrutinised companies (see every -gate and even Google's 0-day blog), and they made Privacy their key differentiator.
They have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain from secretly tracking personal data.
> they made Privacy their key differentiator
This feels more like a marketing campaign to associate Apple with privacy. From 2020 they have been mentioning it insistently, and while Apple has made steps towards it, they still make devices that deliberately include tracking functions, even if they make third parties disclose them.
If Apple was really serious about being a bastion for user privacy, they would make drastically different OSs and APIs.
This feels more like a marketing campaign to associate Apple with privacy. From 2020 they have been mentioning it insistently, and while Apple has made steps towards it, they still make devices that deliberately include tracking functions, even if they make third parties disclose them.
If Apple was really serious about being a bastion for user privacy, they would make drastically different OSs and APIs.
If you want the ability to spy on the paranoid, you advertise privacy. IMO Apple and Google are playing good-cop-bad-cop.
(Of course I have no proof, that’s why it’s called paranoia)
(Of course I have no proof, that’s why it’s called paranoia)
“In each case, the device collects intimate and detailed biometric information about its wearer and uploads that data to servers, communities, and repositories. To the providers of the devices, this data and the subsequent processing of it are the main reasons the devices exist.” This statement is a complete non sequitur in the case of the Apple Watch. The main reason the Apple Watch exists is to sell it to people in exchange for profit. What part of the business model there is about intimate data collection?
Android phones are also sold for profit, and they spy on you something fierce (unless you're in the <1% of users who flashes Lineage and Microg). Why is Apple different?
Apple realized that their business model did not depend on acquiring as much info as possible about their users. Instead, they sell devices with a solid profit, and provide a user experience in order to make these devices compelling.
Therefore playing the privacy card gives them a market differentiator against those who are mainly into the ad business, and who must collect as much intimate data as possible in order to run competitive ad platforms.
Therefore playing the privacy card gives them a market differentiator against those who are mainly into the ad business, and who must collect as much intimate data as possible in order to run competitive ad platforms.
[deleted]
Anyone have details about the increased surveillance associated with TSA Pre mentioned in the article? I understood that these programs authenticated the passenger once but did not increase their ongoing surveillance. Bruce Schneier has some good work about how these programs do not enhance security. I always understood them as a means for the TSA to peel back some of the most cumbersome security theatre while still maintaining the perception of security among the general flying public.
Anyone have other thoughts or information on this point?
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/security_risk...
Anyone have other thoughts or information on this point?
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/security_risk...
> What the Trusted Traveler program does is create two different access paths into the airport: high security and low security.
I think that testing has showed it’s created two low-medium security paths, one with high theater and one with lower theater.
I think that testing has showed it’s created two low-medium security paths, one with high theater and one with lower theater.
Yeah, not sure what the author is trying to say here. I’d much rather submit my fingerprints than a mm-wave scan of my entire body.
I am in TSA Pre and Global Entry and have still had to go through the mm-wave scanner.
Was it an airport without a dedicated prescreen line? I’ve personally never had this happen at any of the dozen or so airports I’ve gone though, but they were all large airports.
Unless things have changed in the past several years, you should be able to opt out of the mm-wave scanner for a pat down instead. Although I guess you could do this without pre-check/GE. It just takes more time.
Between the two, I have managed to never walk through a mm-wave scanner.
As an aside, why are you in precheck if you have GE? GE gives you everything precheck has
Unless things have changed in the past several years, you should be able to opt out of the mm-wave scanner for a pat down instead. Although I guess you could do this without pre-check/GE. It just takes more time.
Between the two, I have managed to never walk through a mm-wave scanner.
As an aside, why are you in precheck if you have GE? GE gives you everything precheck has
I have had to go through mm-wave scanners in MIA and MCO. I am sure I could have opted out if I were willing to go through the process of explaining things to the TSA employee instead of just rushing through.
I am in both because I enrolled in TSA Pre and then about a year later needed to be in Global Entry due to a sharp increase in international travel. Once my TSA Pre expires, I don't expect to have both. Right now, various frequent flyer programs still have my TSA Pre number entered and I just leave it alone.
I am in both because I enrolled in TSA Pre and then about a year later needed to be in Global Entry due to a sharp increase in international travel. Once my TSA Pre expires, I don't expect to have both. Right now, various frequent flyer programs still have my TSA Pre number entered and I just leave it alone.
I'm generally privacy concious, use CalyxOS, etc. but I still use a running watch. Yeah they're collecting my data but in this instance it's my choice, and I enjoy being able to see my progress - afaik there's not a way to do this otherwise.
If you can run android apps, consist checking out GadgetBridge. It's an open source source tool that allows syncing a reasonable variety of smart bands.
No affiliation, I just think it's a cool project. It's worked well for my needs.
No affiliation, I just think it's a cool project. It's worked well for my needs.
You should have included the price too ....
Thats a very important factor to decide .
[deleted]
There are privacy-preserving decentralized solutions being developed for this, but it is as of yet unknown if companies like FitBit will support them when they become available.
The solution has a different bioethics issue, in that it creates a marketplace for bioinformatics. It is a broader category than what the article discusses.
The solution has a different bioethics issue, in that it creates a marketplace for bioinformatics. It is a broader category than what the article discusses.
The post has some interest points but feels like some things are stretched a bit.
Luxury Transportation: Some people pay for a taxi to be transported from A to B, while others are forced into a car and are transported to jail. Why people would spend money on transportation?
The end goal of using a smart watch is to track your exercise and health. The end goal of an electronic monitoring device like those on parole or probation is to keep track of the location of the person under surveillance.
The technology might be similar but the end goals are completely different. Just as you can use a knife to have lunch or to kill. Or a jab for a vaccine or lethal injection. Same technology but very different end goals.
Also, I don’t agree with using the term surveillance. If you’re using a smart watch to track your progress it’s not surveillance. Writing your thoughts in a diary it’s not surveillance. Looking yourself in the mirror it’s not surveillance.
On the technology side, Apple claims that Health Information is encrypted end-to-end [1]. Regarding sending your device location, my understanding is that it’s only sent to Apple “only if you actively request the location of a device or accessory.”[2]
Anyway, I have to say it sucks to know it’s feasible to turn those devices into surveillance devices. The Snowden revelations showed that governments did mass surveillance over many mediums, so they could do it even at a lower level if they wanted. Sometimes companies would collaborate with them and sometimes it was without the company’s knowledge.
It’s an inherent problem of being able to change the functionality of a computer and having to trust to many parties.
Finally, they could also do it with phones. Far more people have phones than smart watches. They could turn the mics on your phone to listen to you. Or the camera. Your phone has all your contacts and chat logs. Moreover, telcos keep logs of which antennas your device uses.
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212037
Luxury Transportation: Some people pay for a taxi to be transported from A to B, while others are forced into a car and are transported to jail. Why people would spend money on transportation?
The end goal of using a smart watch is to track your exercise and health. The end goal of an electronic monitoring device like those on parole or probation is to keep track of the location of the person under surveillance.
The technology might be similar but the end goals are completely different. Just as you can use a knife to have lunch or to kill. Or a jab for a vaccine or lethal injection. Same technology but very different end goals.
Also, I don’t agree with using the term surveillance. If you’re using a smart watch to track your progress it’s not surveillance. Writing your thoughts in a diary it’s not surveillance. Looking yourself in the mirror it’s not surveillance.
On the technology side, Apple claims that Health Information is encrypted end-to-end [1]. Regarding sending your device location, my understanding is that it’s only sent to Apple “only if you actively request the location of a device or accessory.”[2]
Anyway, I have to say it sucks to know it’s feasible to turn those devices into surveillance devices. The Snowden revelations showed that governments did mass surveillance over many mediums, so they could do it even at a lower level if they wanted. Sometimes companies would collaborate with them and sometimes it was without the company’s knowledge.
It’s an inherent problem of being able to change the functionality of a computer and having to trust to many parties.
Finally, they could also do it with phones. Far more people have phones than smart watches. They could turn the mics on your phone to listen to you. Or the camera. Your phone has all your contacts and chat logs. Moreover, telcos keep logs of which antennas your device uses.
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212037
the most basic smart phone have GPS now a days. Not a luxury at all.
No no no - it's only bad when Chinese and Russians collect data. Americans are good and friends. Meantime American diplomatic venues over the world are concrete impenetrable fortresses with multiple layers of fences and permanent monitoring of electromagnetic spectrum:)
Some people also find it reasonable to consider how data is being used, and the relative benefits that it provides in exchange.
This comes down to education. We have been educated to follow and accept, rather than think critically and take the long term view on something, and act on it. Very few people are even able to consider just how much of how they view the world is on account of the way they have been taught. They think the values they have are their own, but it is not on a basis of truth, it is repetition and being told what is right. It is not their personality/individuality extending into the world - it is consensus thinking.
Frankly, its quite sad! And for some of us it is like living amongst the borg, with all these received opinions.