> I'm sorry, but it's not. Full stop. Aside from the "nuh uh; uh huh" nature of this exchange, I really don't understand what your position. > I didn't say yo

> I'm sorry, but it's not. Full stop. Aside from the "nuh uh; uh huh" nature of this exchange, I really don't understand what your position. > I didn't say you don't own the photo, I said you don't have control over it. Those are two very different things. I'm not sure what youre definition of "control" is, but based upon the arguments you've made about "control" above, I assume you mean it in some absolute sense. Ownership definitely implies control. He can use DMCA to compel a third party to stop publishing his photo, for example. How is that not "control"? Your definition of control seems to be somehow about capability or power, rather than normative ethics or legal right. Which is a rather absurd way of talking about this issue. In that sense of control, I don't even control my own body. Someone who is stronger than me can hurt me; can rape me; can even kill me. I have no control. Of course, for normative reasons, we make laws against other people controlling me in certain ways even though they have the power to do so. Data privacy is no different. The discussion is not about what degree of control a party is physically capable of exerting. The discussion is about what degree of control the government should grant to each party. The fact that someone somewhere is capable of hoarding my data, does not imply that this outcome is just or optimal. Your position is a textbook example of the naturalistic fallacy.