I don't think it is possible. It is not just the gov, it is also private and public companies. Forget snooping for a second - let us just consider the public data. Once it is out there, who knows how many organizations have it? And even if we did, how are we going to force them to destroy it and not continue collecting more data? Most people give their data willingly either out of laziness or ignorance. If I have 15 different "store cards" in my wallet and let those stores happily track every single item I buy, willingly, who is to blame?
If this is the natural progression of "information wants to be free", then it's probably worthwhile for us to figure out methods to live within this new reality. I'm not saying we shouldn't still fight it, but there should be a backup plan, in case it is futile.
Most people give their data willingly because they get something worthwhile in exchange. The store cards exist because people trade tracking of their purchase data for discounted prices. Nobody is to blame because there is nothing to blame anyone for.
Nobody is to blame because there is nothing to blame anyone for.
Suppose I have a store card for a grocery store chain. If this grocery store sells my data to a health insurance company and the insurance company increases my premium based on my food purchasing habits, do you think it is fair? I am under the reasonable assumption that my purchase history is for the grocery chain only and in return for that data, I get some discounts on my purchases.
There was a case a while ago where a forum sold their users posts to a drug company. The forum members didn't expect that. Do you think it is fair?
In both examples above, the companies are most likely acting legally (After all, who reads 20 pages of legal crap before signing up for a forum) That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
Insurers adjusting policies to accurately reflect risk is fantastic. They already do it now with haphazard accuracy - I get a partial rebate on any farm share or gym membership, and smoking cessation programs are on their dime completely.
It is like a child giving me a shiny rock because they like the pie I made better. Am I not to blame because I understand the value of the diamond better than the child and use the information asymmetry to my advantage?
Your example only makes sense to you because you assume that the child could sell the diamond for enough money to buy the pie from you (or from someone else who has just as good of a pie) and have some left over. In the actual situation under discussion, there is no such option.
If that's not the case and you really would only part with the pie for that high of a price, and no other pie will do for the child, then what is there to complain about? How much do you think it costs to buy a pie made by, say, Gordon Ramsay? Feel free to replace with someone who is actually a good chef and not just a famous one if I made a poor choice.
The example was to show someone taking advantage of information asymmetry. You are now just arguing the analogy. Do you believe it is acceptable to take advantage of information asymmetry when getting goods or services from someone (including children)?
I don't believe it is acceptable for there to be information asymmetry in the first place. Arguing about what to do when it's there is about as fruitful as arguing about how hard you should be allowed to beat your slaves.
I don't see how one could prevent information asymmetry. With current technology, there is no way for a 10 year old to know all that a 30 year old knows.
To me it is like asking should we allow animals to kill each other. Not only can we not really stop it, even if we could it would kill any carnivores.
