A lot of this is due to the failure of people's privacy instincts. People do have a strong instinctive desire for privacy, but only against other identifiable p

A lot of this is due to the failure of people's privacy instincts. People do have a strong instinctive desire for privacy, but only against other identifiable people. When private data are revealed to people they know or can be connected to their home address, then they are very upset. But they don't react when 'faceless' organizations collect their data, and use it in ways that are opaque, even when this is strongly to their disadvantage (such as HR departments sharing salary data). Anti-privacy interests are completely aware of this and avoid triggering the viceral response. For example, the spy agencies always give the example of "no-one is listening to your calls" as if the risk of surveillance was the guys transcribing from reel-to-reel tape recordings, not the dossier available to the powerful on each citizen. But the guy listening to our words on the tape is the one we have a viceral response to. Similarly facebook advertising terms (and presumably that of other companies) are careful to ban advertisers from showing the targetting and giving the impression that there is a person at the other end who knows all about you. I think the upshot of this is that we need to personalise it for the wider public, not just talk about abstracts like privacy. Bring out the fact that your next employer has that data when negotiating your salary. That companies spend thousands of hours figuring out how to manipulate you based on your data. That at the press of a button, the security services could assemble a dossier on you, and make it available to anyone powerful that you have annoyed.