> you're okay with someone following you 24/7/365 every moment that you step outside your house?

One problem with the current state of the privacy debate is this sort of hyperbole.

No, I’m not. I delineate between information people intentionally cast publicly—even if they don’t understand the consequences of doing so—and information that occurs in public. My location, tracked by my phone and router to various apps’ servers, occurs in public. My tweets, on the other hand, are intentionally broadcast. There is a lot of grey area between these poles, but intent broadly inspires my thinking.

It isn’t hyperbole. Your existence outside of your private home is “occurring in public.” This is why the concept of paparazzi exists. The only difference is that normal people don’t have an army of photographers following them.

> It isn’t hyperbole

Extending “I’m fine with the U.S. military analysing social-media posts” to “okay with someone following you 24/7/365 every moment that you step outside your house” is hyperbolic. Framed as a question, on the other hand, it invites discussion.

I was responding to the notion that public or semi-public information is fair game. My mistake if that was not clear.

As such, my point stands.

> Information on social media is public or semi-public. Fair game, and I’m curious about the results."

Carrying a smartphone is exactly that.