>>> - The right to be informed as to what data will be collected, and how it will be used - The right to opt out of data collection or sharing - The right to

>>> - The right to be informed as to what data will be collected, and how it will be used - The right to opt out of data collection or sharing - The right to be told if a website has data on you, and what that data is - The right to be forgotten; to have all data related to you deleted upon request - The right to be informed if ownership of your data changes hands - The right to be informed of any data breaches including your information in a timely manner - The right to download all data in a standardized format to port to another platform >>> The vast majority of these rights only work when applied to commercial entities. They don't protect you from government invasion, and they don't protect you from individual/social invasion. When applied on the individual level, many of them are flat-out unconsitutional (the right to be forgotten is a particularly obvious example). Does this matter? Is it a problem if we specifically target corporations first? I think it does matter. Even though corporations are currently some of the worst privacy offenders, I think there's real harm in orienting the privacy debate around Capitalist terms, and I think it sets a really bad precedent for future conversations. I strongly suspect that a pivot to talking about privacy as a property right being violated will make it easier for the government to dismiss future criticism, and easier for malicious groups to claim that data from public sources should be fair game. My right to privacy is not based on the idea that I am being economically harmed. It's based on the idea that I have a fundamental right to hide my identity, and a fundamental right to choose what I disclose to the people around me. Money has nothing to do with it. This proposal also goes against years of collective advocacy from activists for both an Open web and a private web that no one can own a fact. I firmly believe that the expansion of IP laws are counterproductive, even when expanded ostensibly for the sake of privacy. Andrew Yang may speak for some members of the privacy community, but he doesn't speak for all of them. I really wish the politicians who are just now jumping on the privacy train would spend more time looking at the history behind these debates and the history of the activists that were working before them.