> This one is difficult. At any earlier time, no.
I suspect the best solution here is laws around how the data from public cameras is stored and processed. Cameras that store a temporary loop of data, delete it after a day or two, and don't upload that data to the cloud are one thing. Cameras that upload every image to the cloud for permanent storage where face recognition software is used to track you movement around the city or your emotional state throughout the day are a different beast.
I'm not sure what you mean by "at any earlier time". Can you clarify?
You mention predatory sign-ons. In this context it seems you view the data-for-service trade as predatory. Do you think it would remain predatory if it were explicitly priced-- eg, if Google offered you a $5 credit on a $5 service for use of your data?
Would you approve of a law explicitly allowing blood-for-service or similar?
No. People are entitled to speech.
> Would you approve of a law which required service providers to offer their service for free?
No. Making money is Virtuous and Good. Acquiring money by theft, deceit, etc is not.
> Would you approve of a law which forbade service providers from offering their service for free?
No. Charity is fine. In the cases people are actually paying with their data and the "free" is just legal trickery then yes. You already can't pay people in blood. Data is just as important.
> Would you approve of a law banning the sale of digital goods or rights to digital goods?
No. However, DRM should be illegal.
> Would you approve of a law banning subscriptions or recurring payments?
No. The only issue here is predatory sign-ons.
> Would you approve of a law forbidding the use of cameras in public places?
This one is difficult. At any earlier time, no.
> Would you approve of a law forbidding companies from having more than $X in revenue, for some X?
No, I wouldn't bother.