> "The DMV lets drivers know about that. It's in the DMV privacy act. How many people are actually looking at that, I don't know. But it's there,” This is not

> "The DMV lets drivers know about that. It's in the DMV privacy act. How many people are actually looking at that, I don't know. But it's there,” This is not informed consent. Being available if someone is already aware enough to know where and how to acquire the information is not sufficiently informative. There is a duty to ensure that your counter-party is aware of the all eventualities to the transaction that could materially harm their quality of life. I believe that for all transactions where a party is acquiring data for use beyond the direct fulfillment of the immediate service to the counter-party, the party acquiring the data should require informed consent from the counter-party. Further, in the case of a person transacting with government, with potentially some carful circumscription for aspects of law enforcement, I believe the state should additionally carry the data equivalent to a fiduciary duty for that transaction.