Probably because no one has any proof other than anecdotal evidence. And the vast majority of times it’s looked into it’s because the person reporting it doesn’t understand how else their information is collected (i.e. web searches, intranet data for other people, browsing histories, etc.)
Look at it this way, is it more likely that the majority of security researchers that look into it, find nothing, and deem these use cases as inefficient and improbable, are wrong; OR is it more likely that data collectors builds good profiles, mixed with some Baader-Meinhof, a little Dunning-Krueger, and a lot of coincidence?
Not everything is a big conspiracy, nuance is neccesary, or the sky will always be falling.
If you think every instance is going to follow suit with your example you’re an idiot. I’d love for you to show numbers of instances that follow your logic, and not just a single comment that made you unhappy with how it played out.
Probably because no one has any proof other than anecdotal evidence. And the vast majority of times it’s looked into it’s because the person reporting it doesn’t understand how else their information is collected (i.e. web searches, intranet data for other people, browsing histories, etc.)
Look at it this way, is it more likely that the majority of security researchers that look into it, find nothing, and deem these use cases as inefficient and improbable, are wrong; OR is it more likely that data collectors builds good profiles, mixed with some Baader-Meinhof, a little Dunning-Krueger, and a lot of coincidence?
Not everything is a big conspiracy, nuance is neccesary, or the sky will always be falling.