So by the same logic, on a farm; the sheep would control the Shepard?
I don't understand how you reached to this conclusion. It's obviously a flawed analogy to me.
Yes it does cost more for a company to actually focus on privacy and security instead of lying about it, which is why it is lied about instead of actually being secure
What I'm saying is this: if people cared about stuff such as privacy, big companies would be more careful with it. Less demand for privacy preservation and high demand for personal information from multi-nationals pushes companies to take advantage of users' privacy.
A business is a reflection of the consumer.I agree that less demand from multi-nationals would push companies less to take advantage of user data. My analogy meant that companies are what have pushed the exploitation of user data and the consumer continues using the product because that is what they are familiar with. Consumers are people with lives, people who have jobs, people who do not have the time and probably can not put enough effort to form as a collective group to boycott a company for exploiting them. People accept being exploited because they do not have anywhere near enough power in comparison to the company in control of the product.
In reference to the analogy I created, it was about your comments in bold, about the business being a reflection of the consumer and that if consumers cared about privacy, companies would be more careful with it. This said to me that the consumer is in control, and why I said that according to your logic,
the consumer is the Shepard and
the company is the sheep. The analogy makes no sense intentionally. In reality,
the company is the Shepard as they are in control of the product and how they conduct their business, and
the consumers are the sheep who ultimately have no control over which way the company conducts itself or how it/its products treat them, and have little ability to change how it treats them even if they wanted to.