It doesn’t matter if credit card providers are paid 0%, 3% or 5% on each transaction. If the law (and/or customer blowback) allows a company to sell customer information, management will eventually give in to selling it because it’s a revenue source. When called on this they will give you a story about how it “lowers customer costs” and some people will accept this as a valid excuse, but none of this changes the reality.

PS: this is really a response to grandparent poster, not parent.

Speaking with coworkers that aren't tech workers - nobody gives a damn. Not one, not even something resembling one. To them, they are getting paid for something they otherwise have no use for. They're aware everything is tracked about them, and they do not give a fuck.

Your friends, family, and coworkers might though, so the critical mass of people not okay with this can still grow :)

In order to bootstrap adoption of CCs, the banks pushed for a law in the 60s that put all the fraud liability on the banks, not the card users (and, to a lesser extent, not on the merchants). Your CC purchases are quite protected and it's easy to dispute a charge (apparently a very big deal in the phone and online sex businesses).

As debit cards became popular here (well after Europe) the banks push them hard on people who aren't excellent credit risks (good credit risks = profit), because they push essentially all the risk onto the account holder and absolve the banks of any responsibility.

I have three CCs (one of each major network) and pay them off every month; it's like having three debit cards except I get a free loan of a month's worth of spending. The term used in the banking business for people like me is "deadbeat"

CC in the UK use to have some nice rewards - and there are advantages in buying some thigs via credit card holidays for example.