> Given the expense and difficulties of complying with these rules and enforcing them To know what data do you have and to able to manage it is not difficult n

> Given the expense and difficulties of complying with these rules and enforcing them To know what data do you have and to able to manage it is not difficult nor expensive. It is a short-term cost for long-term benefits. The fact that most companies don´t have this in place shows how bad data architecture and governance is around. > but if surveillance is cheap enough, how do you make sure that no one is amassing reams of private information? Laws don´t suffice, but there are mechanisms to enforce laws. Whistleblowers protection, in-premise inspections, public claims, etc. That is hard to assure food safety, doesn´t means that you give up. Time to time you find really bad transgressions, but it was worst before this laws. > This information wouldn't be available only to the powerful or well-connected, it should be available to everyone. The problem is the asymmetry of usefulness. For me, to know that you went two days ago to the supermarket and that you have a post about privacy is useless. For a marketing company may provide high value. There is the risk that the powerful will become more powerful having data that they can use to increase their riches. While the poor will continue as poor as they can´t use the data for anything useful. > but we do need to prioritize what aspects of our lives should remain the most private. This is true, thou. To have public salaries, for example, may help employees to have as much information as companies already have. To give access to everyone to some data, can help to improve society. The difference is that I will prefer it the other way around. We protect our data and decide what to show, instead to make everything public and fix what breaks. So, I´m not so far away from your view. But I see it from another perspective.