or maybe the burden of proof is on you to articulate why is isn't troubling. it helps to read the article too.

nah, you can't just claim something is troubling without saying why. asking someone to prove a negative has never been a part of logical thinking.

Hey so - they made a shitty half baked product (the first paragraph of the article has the sources), spent a lot of money on PR, and harvested any data they could - so it's troubling.

With all these circumstances it's you who have to defend it - as I see it the real product here is your data.

It's just sad that people can get away with such schemes and it's more sad that law enforcement will let them do it as long as they get access to the data, see recent changes to Google Timeline.

>so it's troubling.

How so?

As per GDPR it is the data collector who has to reason why he needs that data, not the user who has to defend his privacy. The collector has to clearly articulate what is collected, how it is used and who processes said data. And the user has to accept that s before the collector can do anything.

While I understand that the US is not the EU and there is no GDPR, I firmly believe the GDPR enforces good rules in favour of the consumer. Hence, any company that does differently - albeit legal - acts morally despicable. Americans should follow that thought more, than very often put that burden of defense unto the people.