[sneak]

Giving up privacy for most people is not a security reduction. Privacy is extremely important, but it is relevant only to a tiny minority of people who care about it or otherwise require it. Most people neither care nor use their rights to privacy, so in practice, losing it, for them, is no real loss. It is an increase in convenience—at no cost. The cost is a societal one, borne only when “no privacy” becomes a widespread default. As it stands, there are other browsers that offer better privacy for those who care about such things.

[sanbor]

The NSA revelations shown that governments are doing mass surveillance for real and it is not just a nonsense conspiracy. Right now maybe only ver few might get affected by this. But if in the future the people in power use that information against you or your people you will regret it to exchange your privacy for convenience.

[Ntrails]

> if in the future the people in power use that information against you or your people you will regret it to exchange your privacy for convenience.

Alternatively if the people not in power have a revolution and murder all of us working in finance... well shucks I guess that could be something I'd regret.

Waving around arbitrary threats doesn't help if the people you're preaching to view them as low likelihood.

[JoshMnem]

Privacy is related to security. The ability for anyone with a little technical knowledge to gain large amounts of data about you is a big security risk for individuals and society.