[s73v3r_]

"Just because there is a piece of data out there that pertains to you it doesn't make it "your data"."

Yes it does.

"Some will contend that the data is only gathered through a violation of your privacy"

That it is.

" but I don't agree--in most cases, particularly the big tech companies who clearly spell out in their ToS, privacy policy, etc. what data they're gathering."

And when did I agree to Equifax's terms?

[ancap]

>Yes it does.

While you've presented a compelling counter-argument, I'm still not convinced.

>And when did I agree to Equifax's terms?

You didn't need to because they never stored "your data".

[s73v3r_]

"While you've presented a compelling counter-argument, I'm still not convinced."

It was far more compelling that your argument.

"You didn't need to because they never stored "your data"."

Yes, they did. My social security number, my address history, my employment history, all my data.

[ancap]

>Yes, they did. My social security number, my address history, my employment history, all my data.

I can write down in my notepad right now:

  s73v3r_ - thumb sucker

and whether it's true or false, real or imaginary, relevant or irrelevant to you personally, it doesn't make it yours.

[s73v3r_]

So I suppose in your mind that whatever a company wants to do is fine, and that's your prerogative. But in the real world, that's simply not true. And in the real world, this data is derived purely from me. It absolutely is MY data, and they have no right to collect it without my consent, and they have no right to sell it to others without my consent. To believe otherwise is to believe that a person does not have personal agency, and that a person is not in charge of themselves.

[ancap]

>So I suppose in your mind that whatever a company wants to do is fine, and that's your prerogative.

Non sequitur and a red herring.

>To believe otherwise is to believe that a person does not have personal agency, and that a person is not in charge of themselves.

Non sequitur. Someone owning data about you has nothing to do with denying someone's "personal agency". Quite the opposite. I would suggest someone recording the actions you make is a testament to the principle of personal agency. You can own yourself and your choices all day long, but you don't control the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, if you're saying someone cannot record things that they observe, you are denying them their personal agency. (As an aside, I find your appeal to "personal agency" curious given your previous assertion that people are irrational, implying the foolishness of such a principle).

>But in the real world, that's simply not true. And in the real world

In the real world there are a myriad of legal jurisdictions, with a myriad of laws whose principles and motives often are contradictory. I am not arguing from the perspective of the status quo. Individuals can also demonstrate cognitive dissonance.

Please answer the following questions:

1) If I observe you walking down the street and I see you wearing a pair of Adidas athletic shoes, and I make a mental note to myself "s73v3r_ wears Adidas athletic shoes", do you own my thought?

1a) If yes to #1 how do you justify owning a stranger's thoughts?

2) If I write down the thought in my notepad, do you own the entry in my notepad?

2a) If yes to #2 how do you justify owning an entry in a stranger's notepad who expended their labor creating?

If you answered no to #1 and yes to #2 then you have a contradiction you need to account for (data is data whether it is in memory or persisted). If you answered no to #1 and no to #2 then you have established the principle that you do not own data about you. If you answered yes to #1 and yes to #2 then it would be good for you to at least be explicit so those who are following the argument understand your premise.