Privacy is about choice of who is privy to what information. Facebook can be used for xyz non-pervasive feature, or it can be used for spying. If I build a chai

Privacy is about choice of who is privy to what information. Facebook can be used for xyz non-pervasive feature, or it can be used for spying. If I build a chainsaw and it's used in texas for some massacres, it is acceptable for me to be outraged without having to defend my position on the usefulness of chainsaws and benefits it provides to society. I suppose by the article's line of thinking, we shouldn't have any big data analysis and just stay in the dumb world of anecdote, after all, a tool can't be abused if it doesn't exist right? EDIT: I've been drinking and the original wasn't as coherent as I thought upon third read through.