What is this, Slashdot ca 1996?

Private information in fact does have an owner: the user that it reflects on.

Once you share information it is no longer private unless you put that person under an NDA or something similar.

If you meant personal information then that doesn't make sense either. No one owns the fact that George Washington was male. It is just a statement that could be true or false. George Washington has no control over me spreading this information. Especially since he is dead.

You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy', you may want to adjust your definition to the one that the rest of the world works so that we can have meaningful conversations.

George Washington's gender is of no consideration whatsoever in this discussion, so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman.

>You have a completely unique idea about the meaning of 'privacy'

I used the word private, but not privacy. I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at.

>so bringing it up is a variation on the theme of the strawman.

It was an example of data pertaining to someone. I brought it up since I didn't think the word private made sense.

The GDPR, which is what you are commenting on is all about privacy and private data shared with companies for the goal of processing with a specific purpose in mind.

Privacy and private are very well defined terms in that context, and you are adding a unique spin on it that makes fruitful discussion impossible.

'information wants to be free' is a dumb line that got passed around a lot in the 90's by people who thought that they were being clever, but it turns out that there is lots of information that doesn't want to be free at all, and some of that information is about you and you also don't want it to be free.

Your example is nonsensical, and does not further the discussion either.

> unless you put that person under an NDA or something similar.

Now you're getting it. We, the European public, have decided to put anyone handling our personal data under "something similar to an NDA". We call it GDPR.

Then would you mind posting a dump of your email archive here? Or does that data have an owner?

You can't upload files here and why should I do the work to dump it and give this potentially valuable information to you for free?

That's called a cop-out.

Fantastic way of putting it.

Should we therefore decriminalise unauthorised computer access and publication of data "owned" by any business or organisation?

> It has no owner.

It's not about ownership. It's about my right to keep private information private. It's a right granted by law: the GDPR.

> Information wants to be free

That slogan originates in a sentence that contrasts "information wants to be expensive" (because it's so valuable) with "information wants to be free" (because it's so cheap to distribute). It's not like saying "televisions want to be free, so I think I'll steal one".

I suspect that many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living; I suspect they're just jealous.

> many of the GDPR-haters here aren't people who depend on selling PII for their living

And if they are, they should be ashamed of themselves (though likely not capable of that) and shunned by all members of the industry with any ethical compass.

Agreed.

But to clarify: I meant to include people who aren't directly PII sellers, just workers whose employer happens to sell PII, and even website operators with an ad-network on their site. They're just trying to earn a living, and I'm sure most of them are capable of shame.

A website operator who runs Google ads and scripts on their website isn't evil. They're just "awaiting instruction".

Data should be restricted, when it pertains to an individual who wants it to be restricted - basically everyone in the EU.