[politician]

Which is mightily funny because in the opening paragraph the article equates "anti-free movement" with "problematic baggage". It's a problem if people can't move freely in and out of Europe, but not data -- that's our red line!

[nickv]

I typically don't have to worry about somebody "sneaking and selling my body for their profit" without me, at least, being aware of it.

[xg15]

I mean... Yes? People and data about people are two different things - as is who is doing the "movement" in the first place.

Would you also support free movement of all the valuables in your bank vault?

[politician]

This doesn't make sense as a rebuttal.

Article is OK with people moving uncontrolled in/out/around Europe. Article is NOT OK with data moving uncontrolled in/out/around Europe.

It's stupid. It's quintessential luxury belief thinking.

The article supposes that there exists people that fear their data being misused but don't fear their taxes being misused on welfare for a random population of benefit seekers.

The article would have been better without the self-own "problematic baggage" language.

[xg15]

Because you have so much insight how your taxes are used otherwise. But welfare, that's where you draw the line...

Just ask yourself who would be doing the misuse to see that this comparison makes no sense.