I wish this was more pithy. But I 'ask a historian': When did privacy become considered an inalienable right?
Still, the autonomy of US Tech companies internationally would scare me too... especially as a smaller nation (some corporate incomes are larger than national GNPs).
Privacy, in the sense of "freedom from prying by your immediate neighbours" is somewhat modern. At least in the sense that before around 1500 multiple members (and animals) of a household would typically sleep within a single room, in Western Europe, and separate bedchambers, indoor bathing, etc., arrived in the 19th and 20th century for many.
But the invasions of privacy were direct and overt -- if someone wanted to spy on you, they pretty much had to be there for it. Your private actions weren't subject to tracking from any point on Earth. The personal observation of your actions couldn't be instantaneously transmitted to another party. Information passed slowly, directly, in conversation, very occasionally (literacy was limited) through writing. Because literacy was limited, people didn't have years of accumulated records of their innermost thoughts and writings, for the most part.
21st century surveillance -- by governments, corporations, criminal organisations, insurgent or terrorist actors, etc., -- obeys few or none of these conditions.
It's instantaneous, it's covert, it's bulk, it subsumes location, metadata, writings, speech, and video. It is getting cheaper all the time. It can be transmitted around the world in seconds. The quantity of available information has expanded tremendously.
And the very state of having ubiquitous, comprehensive surveillance means that an assertion of record is likely to be met by a presumption of that record's authenticity. Bruce Schneier has recently realised that a problem of ubiquitous data leaks is that leakers can slip fabricated or subtly altered documents into the leaks themselves. There's no need to massively generate data when a few (manufactured) "smoking guns" are sufficient.
I've had the distinctly unpleasent experience of having false (or misconstrued) claims laid against me. It's all kinds of crazy-making, and if the matter is one involving employment or legal processes, exceptionally expensive and risky.
Thank you for the considerate and thoughtful response.
Your point about embedding false information in a mountain of true things is something I had not considered. Sorry to hear of your personal trials.
I still think in naive terms, I suppose. If I lie and steal the world should call me a liar and thief. But someone who falsely calls someone a liar and thief is a murderer. I never thought (in my naive mind) that people would act this way.
We've never had more privacy than today. The problem is not with Google and others invading our privacy, but with the disparition of the public space. Conversation and debate are becoming even more ugly and stupid than they used to be. That's the real danger.
Still, the autonomy of US Tech companies internationally would scare me too... especially as a smaller nation (some corporate incomes are larger than national GNPs).