zlacker

>>syness+(OP)
Whenever I read one of these articles I am wondering why the examples of WHY mass surveillance affects ME as average Joe negatively have to be so weak / contrived:

For example, imagine someone convinced by the argument "nothing to hide nothing to fear". Would this example convince them that in fact they do have to fear something? "You might think twice about contacting or meeting people (exercising your freedom of association) who you think might become “persons of interest” to the state". I do not think so, after all, average Joe does not know such people.

The solution, in my experience when talking to sceptical people not convinced of the risks is talking about money. Imagine someone with the kind of knowledge we are talking about with mass surveillance. And imagine this person could inform your insurance companies. Do you still think that you have nothing to hide? One then must only show that data is never "safe" and could always be "leaked" to make a very simple, everyday example of why it is not in my (average Joe's) interest to be continuously monitored.

>>kmonad+uo
Flip it around, don't accept the questioners' premise that you need to defend your position. Challenge them to explain why they think a third party should be granted access to your info. And be ready to tell people 'no thanks' and that you are not willing to explain why. Resist taking a subservient position when you have what they other party wants, make them justify the need (this is obviously less practical advice for gov't surveillance than for corporate).

I do this frequently and while it can be a bit awkward when dealing with marketing or PR types, as long as you are polite about it things work out. And anyone pestering you with repeated requests for data or an explanation can receive a less polite response.