I think this deduction is actually wrong. Ask yourself why you hide some things from your relatives and friends. Could it be because quite a lot of people are really bigoted, and the immediate social costs of them learning more about you would be dire? Whereas data collection currently has only one visible consequence on the individual level: what kind of ads & spam you get, and how much. People correctly recognize this as mostly harmless.

People do react to things that affect them directly. In my country it is widely known that people trying to cheat our IRS or social insurance got busted over Facebook photos, so they know not to present a lifestyle that's different than the one they report to the government. (E.g. if you're consistently reporting low income, don't post photos of your two limos. If you're on a (paid by social insurance) medical leave that restricts you to bed, you'd better not get tagged on a photo placing you in a restaurant.)

EDIT: I don't mean to imply that the government has a backdoor access to this data; it's just there were cases of people dumb enough to share incriminating evidence of fraud that found its way to government investigators, by e.g. being posted publicly.

Net Neutrality in the US was obviously gamed in favour of ISPs, telecoms and large corporations, and the population didn't lift a finger behind posting sanctimoniously on Reddit/HN, and arguing with each other about the semantics of free/un-free markets.

There are definitely some parallels here to the way people now often friend their bosses on Facebook, leading to uncomfortable knowledge sharing.

The key words are "visible" and "currently". There are less visible consequences like identity theft, scams and all kinds of sneaky profiling that affect you without your knowledge. And no one really knows how this data will be used in the future.

I noticed that Americans and part of Europeans (mostly Germans I believe but probably others as well) perceive leaks of personally identifiable information as outrageous but everybody I know here in Eastern Europe are indifferent. Unless they lose money or their company gets a negative PR, they could not care less.

Fellow Eastern European here, I remember I was made fun of by my former colleagues back in 2005-2006 when I was saying that the United States requiring bio data in order to get a traveling visa (I think fingerprints became mandatory for US visa applicants back around that time) was very not ok, I received the same responses that you mention.

Nowadays that the bio thing has started reaching and directly affecting people more to the West the subject is fortunately debated on websites like this one and also in some parts of the Western mainstream media, but back in EE the subject is still ignored or at best is made fun of. I remember attending a street march/protest against bio ID cards/passports a couple of years ago, and the majority of participants were religious people that believed things like "666 the number of the Devil" and all that + a couple of tech people like myself which are still seen as paranoid by our friends and work colleagues. Unfortunately the civil society from this part of the world is totally mute on this type of subjects.

But most people in EE are also way too cynical and demeaning by default and yeah, that's a real problem when issues like these arise. Nobody takes them seriously until something monumental happens.

I know the primary issue is that the SSN wasn't intended for the use case it is used in, but we're at the point now that it is so probably best to protect it in a manner that protects the user/owner.

"If he's this good at making people love him, why didn't he do it before? Because these fools always look up for power. People above you, they never want to share power with you. Why you look to them? People below you, you give them hope, you give them respect, they give you power, 'cause they don't think they have any, so they don't mind giving it up."

You're more likely to get murdered by your spouse than by a stranger. Your kid is more likely to get kidnapped by its parent than a stranger. Statistically speaking, it's the people who fear the unknown bogeyman who are irrational, not those who fear their friend, relative or neighbour.

1) Issues resulting from privacy loss mostly have nothing to do with murder and kidnapping statistics. Far more relevant would be the note that as of 2019 identity theft affected 23% of all US internet users [1]. And that's just one way to misuse your information. There are countless others.

2) Loss of privacy means loss of control over who interacts with your data and when that happens. I don't understand why this simple fact is so hard to grasp.

If your information ends up on sale or in a public data dump, anyone who wants to misuse it will have an opportunity to do so, probably forever. It's up to them to decide whether your info is "worth it" or how to use it.

Something you consider trivial today can be used in an elaborate scam tomorrow. Or it could be used for a social media stink campaign by your unhappy ex. Or something else.

The point is, "I am not important enough to be spied on" is a stupid statement, because whether you are important is determined by context. When you loose your privacy, you lose control over that context.

--

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/763130/internet-identity...

Says who? That's not deduction at all. As an example, if you get broken into its far more likely it was someone you know than completely random.