I've tried many times to explain to people things like that GPS satellites do not track you, and there are things you can do with your own phone which drastically cut down on tracking. There's no interest, no understanding that I'm simultaneously sharing their concerns while trying to tell them that they aren't powerless. They just think surveillance is a foregone conclusion, and then distance themselves and rationalize it any number of ways, and then share their nutty mechanism-of-action condemnations as a way of advertising their political tribe.
(I cannot prove that the baseband chipset/software is betraying me by listening all the time. The point is you have to dig through most of the layers of avoidable surveillance to focus on the real technical flaws)
> every couples of months out comes some news about how you car was tracking you all these years.
Please try not to take this too personally, but this is the effect I'm talking about where it feels like all this complexity gets bundled into learned helplessness. Does your car have a cell modem? It so, "it is" tracking your location - meaning the cell provider(s) are obtaining your location, and most likely selling it to the surveillance industry, in addition to whatever your car manufacturer is doing. If you want to be assured that it's not, remove the cell modem or buy an older car without built in surveillance.
(I'm certainly not putting forth self-help options as a substitute for needed overarching privacy legislation like the EU's GDPR. They're both independent topics worthy of discussion)
I don't have poor technical understanding. I am pointing out one of the loopholes companies are using to exploit customers: "privacy agreements."
If you want an in-depth technical analysis of how big tech does spy on you, just ask. I can provide a few case studies using OSINT and "hypothetical" speak, so as not to break NDA.
I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say from the technical side, in case it contains any information that is new to me. Personally, I model things such that if a closed software/system has access to some information, it will backhaul, store, and abuse that information (if not immediately, then in the future). I'm not going to hang my hat on a hope that some companies aren't functioning as optimal surveillance machines!
FWIW I don't find privacy policies themselves particularly enlightening because they're generally vague, equivocating, and subject to change at whim. Sure technically if there weren't a "privacy policy" then you might theoretically have some legal right of action to go after a company for abusing your information (although good luck demonstrating real damages, as always). But at least in the US that feels completely hypothetical.