> Every time I've shown people stuff like that, they shrugged: "so what ?" Some of this is genuine indifference to the problem, yes. But I think some of it is

> Every time I've shown people stuff like that, they shrugged: "so what ?" Some of this is genuine indifference to the problem, yes. But I think some of it is a lack of perspective. After years of sweating tech privacy issues, it's very easy for me to say "oh, they track app usage, which means they track app opening times, which means they can probably tell when you go to bed every night based on the last time you open Twitter." Or construct a hundred other scary (and accurate) stories about how this sort of data can be used to build whole-life profiles of people. Outside of tech, it's not so obvious. "They track which apps I open when, and said it's to help improve battery usage. What's the big deal?" And of course that's also true, this is useful data for innocent purposes like "predicting what you'll reopen next to expire that from memory last". But my concern is that there's an enormous gulf between showing people what's been collected, and how it's used. This article makes a bit of an effort, but it's still far short of the sort of example narrative that actually catches people's attention. Back during the Snowden stuff, there was a lot of talk about three-hop collection. And I think basically no one cared, because it's such an arcane description. But somebody made a tool (which, damn it all, I can no longer find) showing how location + call data at three hops could create a false-but-convincing narrative that someone was a terrorist. I showed that to a couple of family members, and suddenly they were way more concerned with the topic. It's not easy, I think this is a losing battle and I'm not sure how to change that, but I think people do care when they have useful context to work with.