> Oh, please ... is beyond nefarious and any reasonable defense.

I don't know. This seems overly reductive. People build profiles on you all the time, just by looking at you. What you wear, how you talk, how you hold yourself--these things all present a large amount of information to anyone willing and able to observe it.

Companies invest large amounts of money into understanding customer movements in their stores, to better optimize product placement and things like checkout flow. Even sole proprietors will observe their customers' patterns to get a better understanding of how their store is performing. If a worker in a cafe sees the same person come in multiple times and order the same drink each time, is that not also "building a profile" on said customer?

A public IP address and a general location is what... maybe 12 bytes of information? You broadcast a lot more than 12 bytes of information when you pass through a public place, especially when you consider all the possible forms of information you could be broadcasting. You're being overly reductive to try to make your point, and I don't really buy it.

> Huh? Privacy has been a fundamental human right for millennia, codified as part of many legal jurisdictions.

Being "codified as part of many legal jurisdictions" does not make something a "fundamental right". To take a slightly extreme example, treating women as property is "codified as part of many legal jurisdictions" in the world today, and yet it would be insane to use that to argue that "treating women as property is a fundamental human right".

You may believe that privacy is a fundamental human right, but it's not because it's been codified in "many legal jurisdictions". The logic just doesn't follow.

> Again, the difference is in how this information is used. The keywords here are _reach_ and _consent_. We implicitly consent to sharing a limited set of information when interacting with another person or in public, but when that information and its use goes far beyond what we implicitly agree to, then this needs to be clarified, and explicit consent must be given.

When did "reach" and "consent" come into this? Why are these "keywords" here? Merely _existing_ in the world is consenting to sharing "private" information with other people (or even things!) in the world. It's unavoidable. I'd argue further that it's not just avoidable, but _necessary_ to the building of a functioning society--especially any when governed by any form of democracy. It's not a matter of consent, it's merely a fact of life.

You don't explicitly consent to any level of information sharing when you go out into the world, but some amount of it is unavoidable. In fact, I'd even go so far as to argue that it's impossible for you to ever know how much information you share when you venture into the world. You can never know how much someone else can deduce about you from any given interaction, because that would requiring knowing what only another person can know. You also can never know how far that information might spread--because again, this would require knowing others' intent and intentions _before ever interacting with them_, which is impossible.

> This boils down to two things: a) most of the world doesn't understand the implications of the transaction they're a part of when they use online services. The use of their data is hidden behind cryptic privacy policies (which are often violated and don't explain the full picture), and data collection happens in obscure ways without any consent.

I would largely argree with this, because I believe this is how "public spaces" already function. Data collection always happens without your consent. If I pass you on the street and note that you're wearing an Apple Watch, I have obtained information about you that you did not (explicitly) consent to share with me. I can draw reasonable conclusions from that information that might inform me of other aspects of your life that you also did not (explicitly) consent to share with me. This is how public spaces work!

> And b) even if they're aware of this, most users simply accept the transaction because "they have nothing to hide", or the value they get from the service is greater than their privacy concerns.

Again, also agree with this, because I think it's simply true. The "data" that you're sharing with a lot of these companies would be worthless to you yourself (because the value comes from correlations across many data points). The fact that it has value _to a given company_ when it might be worthless to you yourself is part of what gives that company's services value--even to you.

As an example (in an area I'm familiar with), if no company ever collected information about how their website was used (i.e. with a product like Datadog or Sentry), they would be faced with a much larger cost to improve their business. The testing burden would be far higher, they would have no insight into whether or not their product actually works for real users, they would only receive a fraction of the number of bug reports they would receive through automation, etc etc. These are all things that reduce the cost the company has to pay in terms of keeping the product in working order and increasing its feature set. These services exist for _very good reasons_, and they're pervasive because they provide a large amount of value to their customers. Which kind of gets to your next point:

> Users are often never given the option of an alternative business model, and even when they are, the data collection machine never stops.

Users are given the option of alternative business models all the time. I've lost count of how many "privacy-preserving" services I've seen that promise to never collect your data, or never share your data, or whatever. I've also lost count of how many of them have died a slow death, because a) people don't care about that as a value proposition, b) they don't improve their services as quickly as their competitors, c) they're more costly than their competitors, and d) they just suck as services because they fail at basic usability.

There are significant upsides for _all parties_ when it comes to certain kinds of data collection (i.e. telemetry data mentioned above, flow analysis in stores, etc). These things come with no downside other than some bogeyman of "oh noes they have my data".

> Companies know that the allure of getting something for "free" is far more profitable than putting up a paywall, and so they justify extracting as much value as they can from their users' data. We're stuck in an endless cycle of having "free" services where the business transaction is far more valuable to the company than its users.

Again, fully agree, but I also understand _why_ this is the case. There are _significant_ upsides to many kinds of data collection, and those in favor of "enhanced privacy" to this day _cannot_ provide viable alternatives. The fact that it's extremely hard to build a service on a paid subscription that does not subsidize its development/research/feature set through data collection of some kind should be ample evidence that this is the case.

> And it's in the companies' best interest to keep the users, the general public and governments in the dark as far as the extent and details of how value is actually extracted. This is the most vile business model we've ever invented.

Kind of agree with this, except the last bit. I don't see why it's vile at all. Certainly it is in some cases (see the general trend of enshittification), but I don't think the only answer is "make everything _more_ private". That only increases distrust, which is the last thing we need right now.

> What privacy? The blockchain of most cryptocurrencies is a public ledger where all transactions are visible to everyone. Transactions are done almost exclusively via exchanges that follow strict KYC regulations. So it's pretty easy to identify the person behind any transaction.

Okay, here's a Bitcoin transaction[1]. Please identify who the participants are.

> Following your logic, should we ban all cash transactions, since they're even more private than cryptocurrencies?

No, why would we do that? That doesn't follow from pointing at cryptocurrency as a place where minimization of trust and maximization of privacy are the norms. This just seems like you're throwing out whatever other bad things you can attach to the strawman you've constructed from my argument.

> You have a twisted sense of the world, friend. My guess would be that you work for one of these companies, and this is how you rationalize the harm you're putting out in the world.

Wildly incorrect, as well.

But here's the thing... I'm not the one saying "when I go out in public, all people can get from me is the equivalent of a public IP address and a general location". I'm trying to point out that when I interact with the world, there's depth to the interactions that I literally _cannot_ know, and that I'm sharing information with the world that I'm not even aware that I'm sharing.

I'd argue that taking the world of public spaces filled with (very real) people who have as much depth (or more) to their lives than your own, and viewing that as "just a bunch of public IP addresses and general location information" is the truly twisted view of the world. People aren't cartoon cutouts, and places full of real people are also full of a wealth of information that is essential to the functioning of our societies.

The answer isn't to take all that information away--it's to be better at using and utilizing it, for whatever definition of "better" we can all manage to agree on.