The only one of his point's I'll agree with is that strawman that GPDR would protect against a holocaust. This is similar to the gun-rights fetishists who claim

The only one of his point's I'll agree with is that strawman that GPDR would protect against a holocaust. This is similar to the gun-rights fetishists who claim that absolute rights to personal firearms ownership will prevent the next dictatorship. (your handgun will be useless against a Predator drone) Both are anachronistic. If you live in an advanced democracy, the primary threats to loss of privacy are criminal (identity theft), and discriminatory (banks, insurance companies, employers) using personal, private information to discriminate against you. Interjecting dire scenarios of SkyNet or Holocausts is not really helpful to the debate _in developed countries_. Ok, I'll bring up another point. Obsession with health record privacy actually will kill people. Being able to correlate medical histories with diseases and outcomes would go a long way to developing cured or diagnostic tests. If you live in a country with guaranteed healthcare, and don't pay private insurance, it seems a ridiculous fear. I'll list my medical conditions right here: Gout, Acid Reflux, Prehypertension, abnormal liver enzymes, Gall Stones. Does it bother me one iota that any entity knows this? Not in the least. But I'll acknowledge, at least in the US, with discrimination against pre-existing conditions, or private insurance policies, this is a risky proposition. But the solution is to get single-payer healthcare in the US, not fight private insurance evils by walling off medical data that could save lives. (I'm talking about "anonymized" records of course, even though we know with sufficient effort, you can deanonymize data)