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
It’s possible with a cooperative model that has no equity associated with it (no incentive to change hands), and the data is legally owned by the data producer (the individual)

So for example if all data between a user and a service is e2e and also legally considered property of the user then the org can explicitly borrow or buy that data for money from the individual- should they choose.

The user also has the default status of transparency around data collection, No data is stored unless paid for and fails secure.

This is a plausible ethical data centric design.