We have business reasons for collecting user data, and users have no real reason to tell us to delete it at will, other than the fact that it makes them feel "creeped out".

The future is probably going to be super creepy. If you want to participate, get over it.

Riiiight. You sound like the perfect person to be handing my personal information and I would trust you to take full care of it.

Not.

"I shoot this sex tape myself with my camera, climbed my tree on lawn, zoomed with my long focus lens, stored it in my computer. It's my data. If they don't like it, they should have pulled their curtain."

There must be a threshold somewhere. When does it stops being acceptable, and starts being creepy?

Public places are one thing (he entered this building with that woman at this hour). Looking through private property is another.

> Your laws may say differently

Sure, Canadian laws in this area are very scattered and backwards. I wouldn't put that forward as a good thing though, or use it as a pretense to not bother protecting or managing your users PII.

EDIT: Not allowed to say what was previously put here.

But if I do not use your service, then I want that you delete all my personal data. Why is that so hard?

There are pieces of information that are particularly problematic for other parties to know. An email address is not one of those things.

I realize that it was a user error, am a bit miffed about it for two minutes, maybe mail them that they should be more careful with mail addresses.

If, OTOH, it's a business misusing my mail address intentionally and for monetary profit, I hope that regulators stomp on them.

I’d take a big issue to an organization storing a social security number or something of that nature, because its leak would represent a significant risk, but email addresses are fairly disposable items that we only voluntarily attach to ourselves to.

-Other than the fact that it makes them feel "creeped out".

Pick one.

My mother does not understand where data is kept, what is encryption or anonymisation even if you darw it for her...

and if my father wants tp watch porn he’ll pop his CC where ever just to jerk off...

Obviously it's "safer" to let others make rules and force us inside the fence to keep us sheep away from the dangerous wolves out there. I do understand that perspective to some extent. However I would never trade my freedom for security. The former is not easy to regain.

Your example where you "want to give your data away to a sketchy website" is not in any way representative of reality when a) the website is as ubiquitous as for instance FB, and thus in no way perceived as sketchy, and b) the user makes no conscious decision to consent (let alone "wants it").

> Hoping you've blocked access to the EU so I don't happen across it :)

Being glad that he doesn't have the freedom to use the site, thanks to a government law (whether a side-effect of the law or a direct effect is irrelevant, because the law brought it out just the same).

That is, if you're offering such a service that exploits users for their data, then I would never want to use it, so it might as well be blocked, for all I care.

Maybe even desirable if it was, so you don't come across it by mistake and sign up without doing proper diligence.

Freedom of choice is nice, but there's an argument that putting rat-poison in food products isn't ok, even if you label it on the package.

thinking it’s a good idea to give your personal data to FB is not FBs fault, it’s yours.

The government isn't the only source of power and coercion; private companies are too. A lot of these regulations are the one countering the other.

So we should stop government from enforcing food safety and accept poisonings as fact of life...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Consider how many modern food standards regulations came about, and what abuses they were addressing.

The milk scandal is interesting tho. I don't disagree that there are people/companies out there that are horrible human beings (or run by horrible human beings), but these are exceptions. There is also a market-based recourse for consumers. Lawsuits and liability is a big deterrent for example. It's also illegal to harm someone (as it should be) so jail time for the offenders is quite possible without having enormous and onerous regulations. And haven't you noticed that it's the giant companies that often push regulation? Because it raises barriers to entry for competitors. Big companies have the resources they need. Using the government to hurt your competitors is one of the oldest traditions in countries with governments big enough and powerful enough to do so.

[1] https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about...

[2] https://www.libertariannews.org/2012/11/15/meat-packing-lies...

[3] https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/uncategorized/upton-si...

Counterpoint: Cigarette companies poison you, and they found it's an amazing way to gain repeat customers.

like do they MAKE you smoke? cos government MAKES me pay taxes Marlboro does not MAKE me smoke...

* XIX century wants it's snake oil back * Didn't hear about China and melamine milk scandal? * Would you buy food from Amazon if it was co-mingled in current way? * VW emission scandal

It is easy to be freetard when you do not get diarrhea every so often due to food that was "optimized" (like in XIX century ;)