[allemagne]

>Why should corporations and other people be denied the same access & privilege.

Should we be offering that access and privilege to governments? Assuming that we should, your argument seems to be that it's "unfair" not to offer the same to businesses? Bizarre. Perhaps you can clarify.

>The reality is that most people correctly understand the trade-off between privacy and utility.

I would argue against that. However, even if "only" something like 20-30% of people don't understand the trade-off, that's a huge problem. Additionally, those who understand the trade-off that they are personally making in the present may not be giving thought to problems it will have for them personally in the future (the argument of the commenter you are responding to), or problems access to huge amounts of data causes in society right now or in the future.

[aub3bhat]

>> Should we be offering that access and privilege to governments?

They already have it.

>> your argument seems to be that it's "unfair" not to offer the same to businesses? Bizarre.

In Sorrell vs IMS Health (2011) Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor IMS Health, that Commercial Speech was protected under First Amendment. This case is particularly relevant since IMS Health counsel successfully argued that Government could use Prescription data to market cheap generics to physicians however Pharmaceutical companies were prohibited from using the same information. The judges decided that this was unfair and amounted to restriction of commercial speech.

And few days ago the US Supreme Court in 6-2 decision in Spokeo inc. vs Robins ruled that there has to be a concrete evidence of harm/injury before data brokers can be sued.

So regarding my reasoning being Bizarre I think not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/spokeo-inc-v-robi...

http://fortune.com/2016/05/16/supreme-court-spokeo-decision/

[allemagne]

Whether the government already has data is immaterial when the question is whether they "should" have it from a moral or philosophical standpoint, which is the context I'm assuming we're working within. The legality of their having it certainly has questionable constitutionality.

In Sorrell vs IMS Health, the issue does not seem to be whether government and private companies could use the same data to market pharmaceuticals, but whether pharmacies could sell prescription data without doctors' consent. "Fairness" to companies using the same data as government appears to have nothing to do with it. You missed a period at the end of your link, so I added it in mine below.

If we ignore that and assume your interpretation is correct, your conclusion that private individuals and organizations are privy to the exact same personal information that all government organizations may have is definitely not the conclusion that outcome would point towards and is still, indeed, a bizarre belief.

As to your final argument, who is talking about suing companies? If you're responding directly to something I said, the logic to connect it to your response is unclear at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc.