> Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The general public is at lea

> Ignorance of privacy concerns on public networks is not the same as pretending the transmitted data was safe in the first place. The general public is at least somewhat aware of these problems. People pushing a surveillance agenda (esp. marketing) often extrapolate this awareness, suggesting that people are surrendering privacy willingly either because they don't care or as part of a "trade' for services. In reality[1], people often feel powerless. Without the necessary technical knowledge to create alternatives, the aggressively pushed surveillance option seems like the only choice. > "well anyone who doesn't want their data exposed should know better." That's classic victim blaming. I think the common "this isn't surprising" response has some victim blaming in it, too, when it becomes a thought-terminating cliche. Jacob Appelbaum's is probably right[2] in his interpretation: that saying something isn't surprising is a coping mechanism that probably means "I can't do anything about it". Unfortunately, sometimes it's used to shut down discussion. [1] https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-fallacy-how-marketers-are-misrepresenting-american-consumers-and https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/publications/tradeoff-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=594