Sandra Matz

is that religious affiliation in parts of Europe was part of the census, which made it extremely easy for the Nazis to come in and say, well, we're just going to go to City Hall, quickly check the record and see here's person A, B, and C. They live in this place. Now let's go and find them. Now fast forward to today, and we know that atrocity is very vastly based on whether the data was available.

is that religious affiliation in parts of Europe was part of the census, which made it extremely easy for the Nazis to come in and say, well, we're just going to go to City Hall, quickly check the record and see here's person A, B, and C. They live in this place. Now let's go and find them. Now fast forward to today, and we know that atrocity is very vastly based on whether the data was available.

And today you don't need part of the census because you can just passively predict it from all of the traces that you generate and from all of the data that you create. So for me, this notion that We just don't know what tomorrow is going to look like. It's just a good reminder that you probably should care about your privacy.

And today you don't need part of the census because you can just passively predict it from all of the traces that you generate and from all of the data that you create. So for me, this notion that We just don't know what tomorrow is going to look like. It's just a good reminder that you probably should care about your privacy.

And today you don't need part of the census because you can just passively predict it from all of the traces that you generate and from all of the data that you create. So for me, this notion that We just don't know what tomorrow is going to look like. It's just a good reminder that you probably should care about your privacy.

Now, actually, two things that most people do, right, if you then show them the offline equivalence and you say, OK, look, your smartphone tracking your whereabouts 24-7 is like a person walking behind you, observing your every move. That's the stalker that goes to jail. The person reading your messages, like Google, and that's the mailman opening your mail. Again, a person that goes to jail.

Now, actually, two things that most people do, right, if you then show them the offline equivalence and you say, OK, look, your smartphone tracking your whereabouts 24-7 is like a person walking behind you, observing your every move. That's the stalker that goes to jail. The person reading your messages, like Google, and that's the mailman opening your mail. Again, a person that goes to jail.

Now, actually, two things that most people do, right, if you then show them the offline equivalence and you say, OK, look, your smartphone tracking your whereabouts 24-7 is like a person walking behind you, observing your every move. That's the stalker that goes to jail. The person reading your messages, like Google, and that's the mailman opening your mail. Again, a person that goes to jail.

So when you give them these comparisons to the offline world, I think most people actually wake up to like, oh, maybe I do care about my privacy and maybe I just haven't figured out how to protect it better.

So when you give them these comparisons to the offline world, I think most people actually wake up to like, oh, maybe I do care about my privacy and maybe I just haven't figured out how to protect it better.

So when you give them these comparisons to the offline world, I think most people actually wake up to like, oh, maybe I do care about my privacy and maybe I just haven't figured out how to protect it better.

Yeah. And it's actually led to legislation. It's like a very interesting example. There's this case of a judge in New Jersey whose son was actually tragically murdered. by someone that she persecuted before.

Yeah. And it's actually led to legislation. It's like a very interesting example. There's this case of a judge in New Jersey whose son was actually tragically murdered. by someone that she persecuted before.

Yeah. And it's actually led to legislation. It's like a very interesting example. There's this case of a judge in New Jersey whose son was actually tragically murdered. by someone that she persecuted before.

And they found the data online, got it for like, I think a couple of dollars from a data broker, found her home, had like this entire dossier on her and her family, murdered her son because she wasn't there. And that led to legislation that's now protecting judges from their data being out there being sold by data brokers. And to me, it really raises this question.

And they found the data online, got it for like, I think a couple of dollars from a data broker, found her home, had like this entire dossier on her and her family, murdered her son because she wasn't there. And that led to legislation that's now protecting judges from their data being out there being sold by data brokers. And to me, it really raises this question.

And they found the data online, got it for like, I think a couple of dollars from a data broker, found her home, had like this entire dossier on her and her family, murdered her son because she wasn't there. And that led to legislation that's now protecting judges from their data being out there being sold by data brokers. And to me, it really raises this question.

If we think that judges should be protected based on their data, why not protect everybody else, right? I think there's many other people who you would be worried about people getting their hands on your data and then tracking you down.

If we think that judges should be protected based on their data, why not protect everybody else, right? I think there's many other people who you would be worried about people getting their hands on your data and then tracking you down.

If we think that judges should be protected based on their data, why not protect everybody else, right? I think there's many other people who you would be worried about people getting their hands on your data and then tracking you down.