[fixermark]

One concern is that it is a cleave plane between the haves and the have-nots---in this case, the haves are "Those with nothing to hide."

In a future where these technologies are ubiquitous, the person who has to go off the grid for perfectly sane reasons---domestic abuse, witness protection, leaving behind a past that makes one a pariah---will find it that much more difficult. Not only will they no longer have access to the convenience of services that have tuned around their interests and desires---address books that know their work and home, voice recognition that knows what they sound like, personal assistants that can pull useful / valuable information out of the soup of the Internet and surface it to their benefit, etc.---the lack of these technologies in someone's presence will mark them as someone "with a past."

There's the potential that people will look at you a little funny in the future if you have a smartphone with voice recognition disabled, or you're always typing in addresses by hand to a self-driving car because it doesn't just know where you want to go today based on past habits.

[nl]

I grew up without a TV, and people looked at me funny.

I think the domestic abuse thing is bad, and I know Google has been burnt by that once before. But they fixed it once, and I'm not sure that it is something that is unfixable for any substantial reason.

Some people have always rejected technology, for both good and bad reasons. One can usually think of some very compelling case why a particular piece of technology is bad.

That still doesn't mean that the change is bad overall (indeed, the things the person is missing out on sound very useful). And nothing comes close to making it a "grave threat to humanity", or - like I said - a bigger change than something like implants, let alone CRISPR or AI.

[Silhouette]

There's the potential that people will look at you a little funny in the future if...

I'd say "potential" is being charitable at this point. We're now in a world where prospective employers have been demanding access to candidates' social network profiles. We're now in a world where national governments seriously propose requiring anyone visiting their country to disclose all of their social network profiles in advance. Privacy-minded individuals have objected strongly to these kinds of practices, not least because of the inferences that might be drawn if someone didn't provide such details (honestly or otherwise).