They simply don’t think about their internet browser, their privacy and Google, in the same way most people don’t care about how toilet paper is made. Sure you can make a strong case why something is bad, but in the end people just keep buying the same brand of toilet paper.
We talk, and you don't go telling other people what we talked about, or keeping ledgers, or training models, etc.
It isn't that hard at all. Unless, of course, your paycheck is reliant on you not understanding it.
defining privacy in a contextually relevant and concise manner is hard.
If you stop at "oh, an HTTP session happened", you're being a disingenuous maker and perpetuate of strawmen. It's almost always what happens with data by actors you invite into that "seemingly private HTTPS transaction" that violate the simplestsocial precept of the technical exchange.
Things branch off from there. If you can't see that as a fundamental breach of privacy and professional discretion, then again, it's likely you have a vested interest in not seeing it. It's damned obvious to anyone who doesn't.
How about asking the users what privacy means to them.
Why is the concept of "consent" so hard to user-hostile devs?
And then only dollar amounts that move the needle (and if your choice negatively impacts the business by only a million dollars ayear, that's an irrelevant difference for Google. They literally don't care, because a million is peanuts, and does not move the needle)
> It’s just exceptionally difficult to quantify what “privacy” is.
No, it’s really not difficult:
Don’t try to learn more about me than what I explicitly choose to tell you myself.
Until you understand that, you'll continue to be "surprised" when people say they care about privacy but not the pet peeve you have.
Is that exceptionally difficult for you to quantify as well?
As someone else said: It isn't that hard at all. Unless, of course, your paycheck is reliant on you not understanding it.