>So privacy legislation would protect me more universally. Fundamentally, this is where our opinions diverge. You are simply more accustomed than I am to the i

>So privacy legislation would protect me more universally. Fundamentally, this is where our opinions diverge. You are simply more accustomed than I am to the idea of rule of law working as intended. If we're looking to make an objective judgement, we should not state what we like, what we want, what we're accustomed to, etc., but we should simplify alternatives so we can compare things that are commensurate. Let's assume elected officials bring into being the perfect privacy legislation (which contains 0% failure of democratic process due to corruption, misunderstanding of the subject matter, etc.) That legislation would nonetheless protect you only as far as it is enforced. I would argue that the only way to enforce it at sufficient scale is to integrate the capability to reason about the correctness of transactions into the transaction medium itself. Once transactions enforce their own validity (e.g. with regards to the desired level of privacy), if a central legislation is still necessary it can be implemented on top of the selfsame transaction medium. It's either that, or paper over the complexity of the digital world with blanket bans and the like