To the collective maybe. Not to the individual.

Isn't a collective made up of individuals?

It's reverse insurance. With insurance, everyone pitches in so that no one is harmed irreparably. In this case, some people pay dearly for some (arguable) benefit to the collective.

It's interesting to read back over past discussion of this question. Among the more interesting academics is Herbert Simon, and his 1977 essay "What Computers Mean for Man and Society" makes a strong case for the positive impacts of increased utilisation of computer technology. It also specifically discusses the privacy concerns, in one paragraph.

That, unfortunately for Simon's case, contains an egregious factual error, though one which may not have been known to Simon at the time:

The Nazis operated with horrifying effectiveness and thoroughness without the benefits of any kind of mechanized data processing.

Screenshot:

https://mastodon.cloud/@dredmorbius/103059230160200494

Source:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9e7/33e25ee8f67d5e670b3b7d...

Unfortunately, we're now very well aware that this was not the case. Not only did Nazi German prosecute the Holocaust with the extensive aid of mechanised data processing technologies, but they did so using American technology, provided and supported, with full knowledge, by IBM:

Edwin Black has documented this in his horrific book, IBM and the Holocaust (2012)

https://ibmandtheholocaust.com

https://www.worldcat.org/title/ibm-and-the-holocaust-the-str...

To paraphrase Lord Acton, it appears that data corrupts, and absolute data corrupts absolutely.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Did computers 'corrupt' the nazis?

I'm pretty sure genocide predates IBM.

Is 'computer technology' bad? If so, why are you here?

stop gaslighting

Sorry, what?