but the argument I have nothing to hide except bank account passwords etc is hard to argue with

It’s simple to argue against: any and all data points are either potential threat vectors, or will in aggregate paint a better picture of the individual they pertain to, for the data’s possessor to use as they wish. A default-deny policy for data creation/access makes as much sense for individuals as it does workplaces.

‘No one’s spying on me, I’m not interesting’ is more pernicious than Nothing to Hide. Most adults can kind of sense the idiocy of the latter refrain. But ask the utterer why advertising is a trillion-dollar industry if their attitudes and behaviours aren’t interesting, or why a data broking industry even exists, and you’ll typically be asked ‘why care?’

What’s harder to work out is whether the utterance is a genuine failure to comprehend the nature of surveillance capitalism, or a grasping denial of its impact, as though they’re only 80 per cent convinced of their footprint’s worthlessness. It’s difficult to convince someone to turn down their data faucet when they barely acknowledge the faucet’s existence to start with.

AZIZ

Alright guys the software has this defederate feature, now you do you but I suggest thinking of it like a break-glass-in-ca–

<Beehaw swings hammer>

How does a Star Trek virgin go about losing one’s card? There must be a generally agreed order of approach to all the series and films by now. (The breadth and longevity of it has kept me wary.)