I understood the point. I don't agree that rights are entirely arbitrary. The United States Declaration of Independence takes the view that government exists to

I understood the point. I don't agree that rights are entirely arbitrary. The United States Declaration of Independence takes the view that government exists to protect the rights we naturally have. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men... But I understand that "rights" such as copyright are somewhat arbitrarily bestowed. My point was that a right to one's possessions is more obvious and definable than a right to one's data. My hands are mine. My toothbrush is mine because I made it with my hands or bought it with money I earned with my hands. Etc. It's much more nebulous to say that I own information about myself. If you see me, is your knowledge of what I look like "mine"? What about if you write down what I look like? What if you take a picture? What if you write down a detailed account of all my movements and sell it? At some point it starts to seem wrong, but it's fuzzy. You may say these are both arbitrary. I don't think all rights are arbitrary, and to the extent that things are fuzzy, I think rights to physical possessions are less so. But again, I'm in favor of privacy regulation. It's just less obvious what it should protect and how.