| >> then you can pretty much get rid of them storing anything at all about you. > But why would they want to Well the overall premise is that if they don't need to, it will become harder to justify to your users. The second premise is that legislation can be put in place to forbid the ad hoc storage of PIIs. Europe already has in place legislation to allow users to have read and removal access to their PIIs stored by third parties, it does not seem inconceivable that a logical next step would be to actually enforce that users have real ownership of their PIIs by forbidding providers to store them at all. > Either a) service providers are good, and this system is pointless. Not really. The issue with personal data is not just good/bad. There is a spectrum in between. You can be the best intentioned provider and still get hacked. When you think about it, it actually makes no sense to trust any service provider with your data considering 99% of them are not going to be able to properly store and secure them. Why not have a system that is secure by default. And then there's the whole gray zone of what happens if the company sells your data, exploits it internally, gets bought by another company, changes EULA, shares with her parent company, etc. > Idk what y'all are smoking over there, but its clearly the good stuff. Try to be more open about it and don't get dragged on by the anti crypto trend blindly. Sure there are a bunch of ridiculous things out there, but there's also actually good ideas. |
If your system requires a government enforced monopoly, or some sort of class uprising, to succeed, its probably a bad system.
Literally any system, regardless of how good an idea it is, would succeed under those conditions.