"So right away, let us cast aside the technological protocols, that are usually referred to as “the internet”, that of which was built upon that make accessing or publishing information public between two or more machines…
Because talking about such things would require most internet users to cast aside social constructs they willingly suspend on a daily basis upon engaging with such technology/services (without any care to understand for oneself, one might add) and then demand collectively in retrospect to have their cries pacified while continuing to use such services (of which, most for free).
Yup, let us look past all that and believe (because that’s all we can do for ourselves) that institutions/organizations/companies/governments, that all consist of our fellow human beings in all of our qualities and flaws, can provide for the individual that which he chooses not to do for himself, to a satisfactory level in which his desires are forever coddled and placated." "The Banality of Privacy As A Service" [0]
[0] http://pictobar.tumblr.com/post/63785124046/the-banality-of-...
For example, even if it was originally gathered with your permission, that permission can be revoked; EU GDPR will clarify the exact process of how that can be done.
Yes it does.
"Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy"
That it is.
" but I don't agree--in most cases, particularly the big tech companies who clearly spell out in their ToS, privacy policy, etc. what data they're gathering."
And when did I agree to Equifax's terms?
While you've presented a compelling counter-argument, I'm still not convinced.
>And when did I agree to Equifax's terms?
You didn't need to because they never stored "your data".
It was far more compelling that your argument.
"You didn't need to because they never stored "your data"."
Yes, they did. My social security number, my address history, my employment history, all my data.
I can write down in my notepad right now:
s73v3r_ - thumb sucker
Non sequitur and a red herring.
>To believe otherwise is to believe that a person does not have personal agency, and that a person is not in charge of themselves.
Non sequitur. Someone owning data about you has nothing to do with denying someone's "personal agency". Quite the opposite. I would suggest someone recording the actions you make is a testament to the principle of personal agency. You can own yourself and your choices all day long, but you don't control the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, if you're saying someone cannot record things that they observe, you are denying them their personal agency. (As an aside, I find your appeal to "personal agency" curious given your previous assertion that people are irrational, implying the foolishness of such a principle).
>But in the real world, that's simply not true. And in the real world
In the real world there are a myriad of legal jurisdictions, with a myriad of laws whose principles and motives often are contradictory. I am not arguing from the perspective of the status quo. Individuals can also demonstrate cognitive dissonance.
Please answer the following questions:
1) If I observe you walking down the street and I see you wearing a pair of Adidas athletic shoes, and I make a mental note to myself "s73v3r_ wears Adidas athletic shoes", do you own my thought?
1a) If yes to #1 how do you justify owning a stranger's thoughts?
2) If I write down the thought in my notepad, do you own the entry in my notepad?
2a) If yes to #2 how do you justify owning an entry in a stranger's notepad who expended their labor creating?
If you answered no to #1 and yes to #2 then you have a contradiction you need to account for (data is data whether it is in memory or persisted). If you answered no to #1 and no to #2 then you have established the principle that you do not own data about you. If you answered yes to #1 and yes to #2 then it would be good for you to at least be explicit so those who are following the argument understand your premise.