Long-time Slashdot reader Mr_Blank quotes the senior science writer at FiveThirtyEight on a new type of privacy violation:

It's what happens when one person's voluntary disclosure of personal information exposes the personal information of others who had no say in the matter. Your choices didn't cause the breach. Your choices can't prevent it, either. Welcome to a world where you can't opt out of sharing, even if you didn't opt in... We all saw this in action in the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal. The "privacy of the commons" is how the 270,000 Facebook users who actually downloaded the "thisisyourdigitallife" app turned into as many as 87 million users whose data ended up in the hands of a political marketing firm.

Much of the narrative surrounding that scandal has focused on what individuals should be doing to protect themselves. But that idea that privacy is all about your individual decisions is part of the problem, said Julie Cohen, a technology and law professor at Georgetown University. "There's a lot of burden being put on individuals to have an understanding and mastery of something that's so complex that it would be impossible for them to do what they need to do," she said...

[E]xperts say these examples show that we need to think about online privacy less as a personal issue and more as a systemic one. Our digital commons is set up to encourage companies and governments to violate your privacy. If you live in a swamp and an alligator attacks you, do you blame yourself for being a slow swimmer? Or do you blame the swamp for forcing you to hang out with alligators? There isn't yet a clear answer for what the U.S. should do. Almost all of our privacy law and policy is framed around the idea of privacy as a personal choice, Cohen said. The result: very little regulation addressing what data can be collected, how it should be protected, or what can be done with it.
What happens when you are Judged for the way that two bits of information are put together? Neither bit by itself is illegal, but together, they can be purposefully interpreted to manipulate and control your behavior? Take two example bits of data, first you are a Christian, second is you eat beef. Putting those two bits of data together, one could purposefully misinterpret your behavior as being maliciously hostile toward Hindus as cows and beef are sacred, thus, you are actively attacking the beliefs of others. That is not what I personally believe. Im only trying to identify potential vectors of Divide and Conquer, where people are turned against each other for more Money and Power to flow to the top. The solution they will always support is for you to accept someone elses assigned identity and displace your own, putting more power into the hands of those who control the data.

Without Privacy, there is NO Individuality.