> It sounds like you're hoping for this as evidence that you were right to be concerned; have you considered that you might be wrong?
An alternate interpretation is that if a massive breach of trust is intentional then it would be better if it happened sooner rather than later.
> What if your coworkers are right...? How would you determine that?
That is a pretty classic appeal to popularity; what most co-workers believe is not evidence of anything in this case. If they are right, they are right. If they are wrong, they might be a self-selected group of the people who don't see a risk for what it is.
At any rate 'the risk' is a bit vague, but moral panics and witch hunts are things that happen. When the tech companies get involved in one, which will happen, it could be very nasty. There is clearly some sort of new risk here making it easier to quickly and accurately identify minorities. Even ignoring rogue employees finding creative ways to use data to enrich themselves.
An alternate interpretation is that if a massive breach of trust is intentional then it would be better if it happened sooner rather than later.
> What if your coworkers are right...? How would you determine that?
That is a pretty classic appeal to popularity; what most co-workers believe is not evidence of anything in this case. If they are right, they are right. If they are wrong, they might be a self-selected group of the people who don't see a risk for what it is.
At any rate 'the risk' is a bit vague, but moral panics and witch hunts are things that happen. When the tech companies get involved in one, which will happen, it could be very nasty. There is clearly some sort of new risk here making it easier to quickly and accurately identify minorities. Even ignoring rogue employees finding creative ways to use data to enrich themselves.