It's a slippery slope. Analysis of writing style, patterns of use, etc can deanonymize data to the point where basically everything becomes PII.

Treat everything as PII and we are good. The constitution has an amendment to protect our rights. That seems important. I know of no guaranteed right of corporations to infringe on our privacy and to provide access our data.

Forty years ago we didn't have this issue because there wasn't so much data for them to try to get their grubby greedy hands on. They don't need our data (ANY OF IT)!

The US constitution forbids the US government from acting in certain ways, it in no way impedes upon private organizations. Tort law and the like is what holds private organizations accountable. i.e. The fourth amendment does not protect you from a private entity or individual; laws covering trespassing, theft, breaking and entering do. Please don't drag the constitution into an argument it does not have a place in.

I didn't say the constitution protects me from private assholes. My point was privacy was important to our founders and remains important today. Had our founders known corporations would be a thing and grow as powerful as the government, I would argue they would be included.

We need laws to protect us from them. Much more and better laws. The fact that the constitution does protect us from gov. is a good argument that our gov. should be active in protecting us from corps. Anyway that is my conjecture.

I'd like to argue (not for the first time either) that the Constitution is seriously deficient in its failure to enshrine privacy as a personal right. Great as it has been for the last couple of centuries, I think it's obsolete and should be replaced rather than merely amended.

There's no reason that can't be done as an amendment.

It's not the only thing I'd like to change. Besides which, there is already a movement in progress to bring about another article V convention and I'm guessing the goal of the proponents is drastic rather than minimal alteration. Here's a recent summary article on developments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-surprisingly-cl...

The problem is everyone wants different drastic changes.

Obviously. This is going to lead to a bitter conflict in the not-too-distant future, unfortunately.

Let's slide a little more down that slope, then.

Where personal data and privacy is concerned, I'd rather err on the side of caution, than the world we live in now.

Dunno about anybody else, but I'd like to find a convenient canyon.

Literally everyone wants that, the problem is there isn't one, at least that anyone's been able to identify as of yet.

There certainly is one, if you only take into account public opinion. We're dealing with conflicting interests of people who generate data and corporations that collect and traffic data.