[umvi]

> Indeed, this is the very foundation for the GDPR policy in Europe: users should have a choice about how their data is used, and be fully-informed on its uses in order to make the right decision for them.

I still fundamentally disagree with Europe's stance on data ownership. If I collect data on a person in a public location, I believe I own that data, not the person. If a person walks into my store and I take a picture of them, I don't believe I've "stolen" anything from them, nor do they have the right to demand I give them a copy of the picture I took and delete the picture from my hard drive. This fantasy world where everyone should be able to be perfectly anonymous and erase all evidence of their existence anytime they want is a bad idea. There has to be a balance between publicly available information and private information. If you are in a public location, I should be able to glean information from observations.

[praptak]

This was ok before the aggregation came. My presence on the street at point X,Y at time T is public information and I don't object to it being captured once, say, by a tourist taking a photo. But aggregated over a week at 10 second intervals? That's a breach of privacy.

Quantity makes a huge difference.

[ptah]

If you take a picture of a person naked on a beach without their permission, is it ok to use that picture as you like?

[umvi]

Why should I need their permission when it is a public location? If they don't want to be photographed naked in public, don't go around naked in public.

If I'm a skilled artist and I see a person naked in public without their permission, am I allowed to recall those thoughts and recreate the image in my mind onto paper using my artistic dexterity? Or am I breaking some privacy law by doing so?

[chosenbreed37]

> If you take a picture of a person naked on a beach without their permission, is it ok to use that picture as you like?

Sounds like a straw man argument. People voluntarily upload/submit their data to Google, Facebook, etc

[llukas]

Except when they dont: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn

[mcv]

They do, but with the intent to share it with their friends, not to have Facebook/Google use them for completely different purposes.

[djaychela]

>If I collect data on a person in a public location, I believe I own that data, not the person.

Where do you define 'a public location' in terms of internet use?

[llukas]

> There has to be a balance between publicly available information and private information.

You're arguing that more data should be public so you can privatize it?

[fixermark]

It's a reasonable space to have disagreement in, which is why US and EU law differs here.

[shhehebehdh]

I think the question of who owns it is normative, since ownership itself is just a legal/social construct. The question is which policy leads to a better world. On that front, I tend to agree with you. There are few people who will be materially happier or better off from GDPR, and it does close off some analysis that would be beneficial to business. If business is hurt and no one is helped, I call that a net negative.

But, it is the law of the land, and unlikely to change in the near future. Lots of things are suboptimal and I’m not sure GDPR is very close to the top of my list. So you get over it and move on.