Re: Solid?
On a more reflective note:
I think it might be good to not focus on (the technical) what is shared with whom and how, but more on the (unfettered) decision, need, desirability, and viable alternative for the individual to share. The assumption here is a bit that an individual must share, no alternative. And thus that often quoted, but little practised principle of choice has become an empty shell. Because real choice can be a PITA if you want to make sure that your interest is being served...
Like the example mentioned here: So what about banks? Shoe boxes? OK, so what if it is my individual choice to keep my money in a shoebox? My choice, preference, decision, and yes, also my consequences if lost. But it is what makes us human and individuals. Your personal decisions, your actions, and your consequences. But what we see nowadays is a "do what I say so you don't hurt yourself" general perception and indeed acceptance, mostly under the lazy pretence of "convenience". But it completely disregards (sure shoot me) the also very human default fact that humans only do something out of self interest. Like that bank. Or that government that promotes electronic payments, because cash in shoe boxes is for criminals (and doesn't help us see if you pay all your taxes). And like what Sir Tim mentioned...
Because, with absolute respect to Sir Tim: yes, sure, that sounds very nice what your company has developed. But as a less sarcastic, genuine consideration: why can humanity only work when everybody in the world (especially the less well off part of it) is "on the net"? Will it give them food on the table?