Have none of these people considered that maybe the "people in the know" are "hostile" about these "data collection" actions for good reason perhaps? That mayb

Have none of these people considered that maybe the "people in the know" are "hostile" about these "data collection" actions for good reason perhaps? That maybe, just maybe the people abusing these data collection activities are doing hostile things, or taking unnecessary risks with the data, and we're concerned about the past, current, and future consequences of those actions? I personally hate being the "I told you so" guy. I try to warn people about things like security, privacy, and backups of important data, and am frequently ridiculed as "paranoid" (and much worse) right up until their cavalier attitudes about these things bite them in the ass and they lose decades of irreplaceable important data, or they get "doxxed" or worse yet, become the victims of "identity theft" and then they inevitably come crying back to me to help them "fix it". I don't want to have to tell people "Yeah, sorry. You're screwed at this point." That never feels good to say. This uncontrolled corporate and government collection of (what should be private) data is another such situation, where people don't need it to be happening, but they've been trained by these corporate and government entities to believe it's "necessary" or "useful" somehow, and those people absolutely refuse to accept that there may be better (and safer) ways to handle such situations other than just blanket collection of data on corporate or government servers. Maybe we're "hostile" to these activities because they're hostile activities and we're trying desperately to convince folks there's better options.