Still sounds potentially problematic. Per wikipedia: "Differential privacy provides a quantified measure of privacy loss and an upper bound and allows curators to choose the explicit trade-off between privacy and accuracy. It is robust to still unknown privacy attacks. However, it encourages greater data sharing, which if done poorly, increases privacy risk. Differential privacy implies that privacy is protected, but this depends very much on the privacy loss parameter chosen and may instead lead to a false sense of security. Finally, though it is robust against unforeseen future privacy attacks, a countermeasure may be devised that we cannot predict."
If I am dependent on the curator to determine the level of privacy then I've already lost.
> …it encourages greater data sharing, which if done poorly, increases privacy risk.
This is a really useful argument, because it’s the equivalent of the FDA’s “generally believed to be safe”. If you look into something and this is the risk you find, then it’s safe.
You are already dependent on a set of curators to not simply outright lie and export the data as captured. This take lacks subtlety; unless you are going to abandon the set of functionality ("where is the best fried chicken near me?") that this sort of metadata facilitates, you need to make decisions about which curators you trust, and then participate in driving them to honesty and accountability.
From my perspective this article leans too heavily into the FUD, and really doesn't succeed at keeping the call to action ticking over. On a good day, the EFF can be really good. Today, not so much so.
The problem with the EFF is that it’s full of people who made up their minds about what’s ok and what isn’t over a decade ago, and they are largely just playing the hits now. No new material, and no consideration that things might change.
If I am dependent on the curator to determine the level of privacy then I've already lost.