zlacker

>>benwer+(OP)
The government couldn't do it this easily if it wasn't for sale.

It being for sale means anyone can be doing it which might be a framing that would be more alarming to the law-and-order types.

But really you need a two prong solution:

1) restrict this from being collected and compiled in the first place, eliminate the ability to default to this tracking unless someone opts out

2) restrict the government's ability to use or acquire through non-market-based means. The claim here is that there's already restrictions on this vs directly surveiling, but I haven't seen directly which specific restrictions those are for buying off-the-shelf info and the article doesn't specify.

There are very really no companies that I trust to keep my data safe for 10, 20, 50 years. Leadership changes, ownership changes, etc. We have to cut it off at the source.

>>majorm+08
Could some form of copyright or ownership help with this? The reason they can sell it is because it's theirs. Not yours. If you retained ownership of that data somehow would they need a warrant for it?

>>2OEH8e+ip
That implies creating market for data, attaching speculative value to it and et cetera, and stinks of web3 bullshit.

>>bilqis+9u
> creating market for data, attaching speculative value to it and et cetera, and stinks of web3 bullshit

Creating tradeable property rights is older than web3. (Web3's innovation was turbocharging securitization by skipping the step of finding something worth securitizing.) The question is whether, and to what extent, we want personal data to be a market good. It currently is.

>>JumpCr+Dz

  > turbocharging securitization by skipping the step of finding something worth securitizing

Best description of web3 I’ve ever read