There is some psychology to this. A person's instinct is to fear and, as if a predator were stalking them, fear of being watched. In the digital age, that mea

There is some psychology to this. A person's instinct is to fear and, as if a predator were stalking them, fear of being watched. In the digital age, that means fear of how their data is being used/watched. That isn't to say they are doing anything wrong, per se, but the act of being watched instills fear. Thus, even though they don't read the article, they respond instinctively with skepticism. The reality of how this data is used is probably not as dire as is feared. Even though fear is a useful tool, it should be used to push us to investigate (e.g. read the paper). Fear should inform some objective discussion. In this case, I think that the fear is relevant due to how companies have notoriously failed in preserving anonymity. I think in order for us to usefully data mine people's lives and actions (which is what we're talking about), we need to come up with better ways of ensuring that the data can't be used for draconian purposes by those in power (whether state, media or other). We need some way to assuage the fear to get the benefits of the data. After all, this isn't a technology problem. It's a people problem.