The metaphor is still flawed thoguh doesn't add anything to the conversation here. What exactly is the equivalent of death here? Google has all your data - what could they do with it that will affect you realistically? Or if someone malicious gets it?
My point is that the likelihood of malicious activity is low, and so are the consequences. Am I missing something?
One danger is that with all that data about you and very advanced AI/ML tech Google can push you into making irrational purchase decisions (yeah, I know YOU are special, and advertising doesn't work on YOU) - e.g. buying a red sports car in your 40s.
The other is this data will be available to NSA, GCHQ, etc. and their controlling governments, politicians, their wealthy sponsors/muppetmasters, etc. Do you trust the politicians in USA, or any other courtry?
We are all man and not angels. Having all data on someone, you can always find shady stuff. Using that government and big business can make sure there are no influential union leaders, political parties offering real change, etc. It will be the end of (however imperfect) democracy.
Moving on, the remainder of the argument relies on the assumption of an antagonistic state, which if true, means you have a much bigger and immediate problem in the first place. Google or not, China seems to be doing pretty well as a surveillance state so that doesn't seem too convincing either.
So I don't think that opinions will change without a string of high profile incidents that substantiate both of the concerns you mention.
Or a political zombie. Did everyone forget ad-tech's role in the 2016 election?
That power doesn't come from your individual data point, but rather from the collective points. In order to have an effect on that power, you need mass action.
The rest of my comment back is already covered by the other child comment here by name_for_now, which I strongly agree with.