[bowaggoner]

Great point! We ultimately felt (and this is above my paygrade) that it was outside the scope of what we were asked to explore/recommend. So we avoided suggesting taxes that drastically change corporate incentives and behavior around private data. Instead we focused on more equitably distributing the value that's currently generated from data.

We did discuss this and felt that a very deep dive would be needed. (A) It's not an objective no-brainer exactly what behavior you want to disincentivize. (B) The economic impacts/consequences could be huge, so the tradeoff needs to be carefully considered.

One example is Google Maps. Right now it has privacy drawbacks, but it also generates a lot of utility for a lot of people and is relatively freely accessible for individuals. You'd want to be careful about screwing that up. For example, incentivizing Google to switch to a paid access model.

I guess part of what this EFF article is saying is: these decisions are better treated as part of privacy law / human rights, rather than economics...I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

[specialist]

"You'd want to be careful about screwing that up."

Google will some how manage.

Government's job is to define the rules of the game, make things predictable. There's no need to second guess yourself by anticipating how the belligerents, err, players will react, and preemptively conceding the initiative.

You act. They react. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I understand the realpolitik, constraints, bargaining.

I'm just encouraging you to become clear about what you want, ultimately. Then find a path to get there.

Some day you'll have an opportunity to do great things. Are you ready? What will you do?

That's how the other side works. They spend $100m annually war gaming and coming up with plans. Then when the next inevitable crisis hits, they rush the field.