Nice examples, yes.
I hope I didn't come across as someone from the if-you-don't-have-anything-to-hide crowd.
I do think your conclusion is a bit quick, though.
> Yes, in the real world data has owners
Things happen in the real world, and people perceive and know it as a consequence. We came to call some of that data (if recorded with machines I guess).
We wouldn't think of perceptions in terms of ownership. It just wouldn't work. We don't have a response for intrusion, e.g. If someone catches us in the act, there's just no protocol. We often just pretend it didn't happen, and are embarrassed. You can't unsee it, or punish someone for seeing something private.
We can throw them out of our house, if they trespass. But if they see you through the window, what do we do?
My point earlier was only: ownership as an analogy for data is not as helpful as some think it is.
But if you stick with ownership, you possibly end with making very strict rules around personally identifiable information (PIN), like in Europe. Some of that ends in log files, like IPs. I think that is a bit like walking by and peeking into a shop window. The shop owner might see you too (perception). Why is that the shoppers protected information? I think it's rigid and comes from off analogies. That's not to say some data doesn't need to be private.
In the end, when this cultural development is further along the way, we might have very specific rules. Like with books, and movies, which have fair-use rules etc.