You showed your true motivations in your reply to someone else:
> If we're talking in hyperboles, then let's go all the way, right? Or 'public' means 'eventually public'? Or what?
We're not talking in hyperbole. At least, most of us aren't. We're trying to discuss reality as it is on the ground.
The person you replied to before said to imagine the contents of my e-mail box as though it is a public record. To imagine does not make it so. I imagine myself as James Bond whenever I put on a suit coat and tie; I am not James Bond. I can imagine my e-mails as ones that, through no intent of my own, are exposed and made as part of the public record but treating them as though that possibility might happen does not implicitly make them public. It also doesn't mean I don't want them to remain my own secure property.
This is just as specious of an argument as the retort of "ah so you claim you have nothing to hide but you have curtains on your windows, checkmate, I am very smart."
The issue is not one of what specific measures are or are not taken, it's about having the informed choice to make decisions based on information use. I wager that a lot of people would make the choice to pay with actual cash when shown the actual cost in data of how their personal information is being used. But, conversely, a bunch of people probably don't truly care or mind, and the loss of information control is worth less to them than the loss of money to be paid.
That doesn't then imply that a person has zero care about the information under their control, nor that their refusal to give you control of that data makes them a hypocrite.