[pc86]

I mean it's pretty clear that you are directly harmed if someone takes naked photos of you without your knowledge or consent and then keeps them. It's not a good analogy so if we want to convince people like the GP of the points you're making, you need to make a good case because that is not how the law is currently structured. "I don't like ads" is not a good reason, and comments like this that are seething with rage and hyperbole don't convince anyone of anything.

[drawkward]

What is the harm? It is not obvious to me, if the victim is unaware...unless you are alleging simply that there is some ill-defined right to privacy. But if that is so, why does it apply to my crotch and not my personal data?

[simoncion]

These are exactly my questions. If I never, ever know about those pictures and never, ever have my life affected by those pictures, what is the actual harm to me?

If the answer to them ends up being "Well, it's illegal to take non-consensual nudie pictures.", then my follow-up question is "So, why isn't the failure to protect my personal information also illegal?".

To be perfectly clear, I do believe that the scenario kibwen describes SHOULD be illegal. But I ALSO believe that it should be SUPER illegal for a company to fail to secure data that it has on me. Regardless of whether they are retaining that information because there is literally no way they could provide me with the service I'm paying them for without it, or if they're only retaining that information in the hopes of making a few pennies off of it by selling it to data brokers or whoever, they should have a VERY SERIOUS legal obligation to keep that information safe and secure.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> to fail to secure data that it has on me

Just want to point out that the company is usually also doing what it can to get other information about you without your consent based on other information it has about you. It's a lot closer to the "taking non-consensual nudie pictures" than "fail to secure data" makes it sound.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's pretty clear that you are directly harmed if someone takes naked photos of you without your knowledge or consent and then keeps them

Sure. In those cases, there are damages and that creates liability. I'm not sure what damages I've ever faced from any leak of e.g. my SSN.

[pixl97]

I mean most people won't until that day they find out theirs a house in Idaho under their name (and yes I've seen just this happen).

The problem here is because of all these little data leaks you as an individual now bear a cost ensuring that others out there are not using your identity and if it happens you have to clean up the mess by pleading it wasn't you in the first place.

[pc86]

The real kicker is trying to prove which leak your SSN came from. If your SSN gets leaked by 3 different companies, and 6 months later someone uses your identity to commit some crime, you can't have each company share 1/3 of the blame.

[BlueTemplar]

I don't see why they couldn't all share the full blame ?

It's not like there's a "conservation of blame" law.