The law has long been castrated on your points. The legal basis would be, of course, that private information is property, but that one doesn't exist in this country (yet?).
The legal basis would be, of course, that private information is property, but that one doesn't exist in this country (yet?).
Trying to apply rules made for physical items (if I take it you don't have it any more) to things that act completely differently is a really bad idea.
Humans are smart, they don't have to use the exact same laws. Like I implied, the laws don't actually exist in the US.
Would it make a difference if I had said "something akin" to personal information as property? I mean, we're reading this story, so personal information has currency in some way, right? Seems to me that with some political will that the laws can be nudged further in favor of the user.
You choose to divulge any information you consider to be private. Absent an actual formal agreement contingent upon giving that information (which an internal policy is most definitely not), I have no obligation to restrict who I share the information you chose to share with me.
Unless you're going to argue that you own anything you happen to know, even after other people know it? Unless you're going to argue that a posted policy on a free website constitutes a binding agreement?
Trying to apply rules made for physical items (if I take it you don't have it any more) to things that act completely differently is a really bad idea.