I think this would only indicate that she might care, but thought theoretical worst case scenarios are not sufficient evidence for an actual, non-negligible risk to her privacy. If they had told her that exactly this would definitely happen, I think she would not have bought the device.

I think one problem of explaining privacy issues to non-techies is justifying why theoretical problems often pose a real threat without sounding (to them) like a conspiracy theory nutcase.

The loss of privacy spreading throughout civilization is recent and rapid. It's not surprising that somebody might think about it differently after they've experienced it. We haven't had time to come to terms with what out technology can do.

"Amazon/Google/Apple/Facebook/X have very smart people who will not allow this to happen."

"I have nothing to hide."

"People who want to listen to our boring conversations are losers. Let them waste their time doing so."

And the list goes on. I'm not making any of this up.

And then when it (occasionally) happens to them, there is a whole lot of dramatic outrage and someone else must be blamed. (Although in this case, I agree someone else is to blame - but I've seen this play out when people explicitly agree in the contract to consequences, and are warned quite clearly by a human about the implications of the contract).

Response: "Cool. What's your e-mail password?"

Yes. Do you think if everyone knew what was going to happen with the Facebook scandal before it happened they would have signed up for Facebook? That's why it's called a "scandal."

Yes.

I also noticed how they haven't left once the scandal came to light.

You and I must read different news sources.

From what I've read, Facebook is down over a billion visits in the last quarter.

I've visited less in the last month, but because they've changed the algo on my feed and it's not as interesting ... though that could be a network effect, but I'm getting quite different stuff.