Agreed. TLDR: Bookkeeping is hard, so only reasonable option is the honor system. Good grief. EFF, ACLU, others frustrate me to no end. I just cannot grok th

Agreed. TLDR: Bookkeeping is hard, so only reasonable option is the honor system. Good grief. EFF, ACLU, others frustrate me to no end. I just cannot grok their viewpoints. Establishment centrists trying to defend an imaginary world that never existed? I was an election integrity activist. I had also implemented electronic medical record exchanges. So I know a few things about patient and voter privacy. My discussions with policy people have never been fruitful. We have no privacy. That's not the interesting part. The interesting part: What is privacy? What are the technically feasible options? What are the laws and practices to uphold those feasible privacy solutions? In my experience, the privacy advocates are completely out of touch with the technical reality. (I'll skim read the datadividends.org link below shorty, to see if they're more savvy.) -- Putting a price on our data has two consequences. It establishes our personal property rights over our own data. It's my data. It creates a liability for the holders of data. Paving the way for tort. Language that accountants and lawyers and investors and even congress critters understand. Putting a price on my data is not about the money. Well, maybe a little. Any one making a buck off my data owes me my cut. Pay me. -- Property rights for personal data still don't answer those three interesting questions. That's a separate discussion.