[Genghis_Khan]

Let's decompose "our" data just a bit: data that we ourselves intentionally create (e.g., pictures we take, documents we write) and the observations of others about our activities (e.g., server logs, transaction data). The former seems (!) straightforward to address, while the latter seems fraught. After all, if I own all data about my comings and goings, then so does a corrupt politician his. If we go too far in restricting the recording and sharing of our observations about others, however automatic they may be, we might accidentally spring a speech-stifling genie.

[layer8]

Rights always have to be balanced against each other, as they often are conflicting. This is true in general, and nothing new here.

The right to own the data about your personal private life exists in Germany, for example, where it is called “informational self-determination”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informational_self-determinati...

“This basic right warrants in this respect the capacity of the individual to determine in principle the disclosure and use of his/her personal data. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest.”

[n4r9]

> After all, if I own all data about my comings and goings, then so does a corrupt politician his.

Surely laws can differentiate between private and public domain? I'm able to store private documents in my house without anyone knowing about it. So is Donald Trump. But he can't legally keep classified state documents there indefinitely. Perhaps if he was more discreet about it he wouldn't have been caught. But there's a clear distinction in the law either way.