The core idea you have is amazing! Tell people, be sure they know their risks, communicate them clearly, and then they're empowered to make their own choices. I

The core idea you have is amazing! Tell people, be sure they know their risks, communicate them clearly, and then they're empowered to make their own choices. It's a wonderful idea that both protects people and respects their autonomy. Nutritional information is relatively easy to provide is thoroughly exhaustive detail. How does one go about informing about data events that may or may not have occurred, and may or may not occur in the future, in a way that's comprehensible to users who must be assumed to have absolutely no technical grounding whatsoever? The most useful informative warning I think that could be reasonably provided runs like this: "Please be aware that any data you provide this service, and any data this service gathers, could previously, presently, or in the future be the subject of a data breach that may or may not be detected." While the warning could of course be improved by being made more specific about what data is concerned, this does not seem like a good way to produce useful and informative warnings. Instead, it seems to me that attempting to pursue that most wonderful of ideals - never fail to inform - could easily produce a sea of overcautious attempts to ensure a user is never not informed, and instead over-informed into oblivion. While such labels might potentially be successful in scaring users into using services less, this might not be the same as informing users. I do hope I've communicated clearly here. Please let me know if anything could have been better-written. More importantly, I've clearly failed to understand some of your wise and well-made points. Can you help me with what I've missed?