RMS' objection to "intellectual property" isn't an objection to the concept of property in general, but rather an objection to conflating the rights that are as

RMS' objection to "intellectual property" isn't an objection to the concept of property in general, but rather an objection to conflating the rights that are associated with tangible property with the rights that are granted by copyright law and patent law. The canonical example is the language of "theft" used by organisations like the MPAA to refer to copyright infringement - RMS would say that illegally copying a copyrighted work doesn't deprive anyone else of their copy of said work, unlike stealing a sandwich from someone. RMS might disagree with me here, but I think the same thing can be said in this case - we need more precise terminology that accurately describes the types of infringement when it comes to misuse of PII.