Subpoenaing footage also has more than "no bar" as they still have to convince a judge to approve it

But my point is that you don't have to be under any suspicion yourself, if the police think your camera recorded something related to an investigation, they can take the footage.

If some person you dislike got robbed in front of your house, you could be compelled to help them by supplying your video footage even if you don't want to. If you really owned your camera footage, you could say "Naa, I don't wanna help that guy, I'm not going to let you have it".

And still that doesn’t mean we don’t own our data. We own it.

That’s why the police asked us for the data. Because we own it.

But they don't ask, they tell you that you have to hand it over. You can appeal to the courts (which is an expensive option), but the judge may say the same thing and you have no (practical) choice . That's why I say that you don't own it -- if you owned it and the police ask for it, you could say "no".

What then, do I ask, do you own? Because it sounds like your answer is “nothing”, which is not a useful definition of “own”.

Can you hand it over if you don’t own it?

You can own your car but if you get in debt they can come and take it too. That's what living in country with other people is.

“If some person you dislike got robbed in front of your house, you could be compelled to help them by supplying your video footage even if you don't want to.”

You say that like it’s a bad thing…

No, I'm saying that if I really owned the video, I could decide whether or not the police can use it. I'm not arguing whether or not the police should be able to have access to private video, but that you don't really own the video if you can't tell them "no" when they subpoena it.

Then you don’t actually own anything because I can think of a scenario where the government can take it.

including your freedom and your very life.

If the government does not have power to compel then property rights are moot anyway as the biggest warlord will just take your shit.

Seems a sophmoric definition of ‘own’.

Furthermore in this circumstance you aren’t even deprived of your video. They simply want a copy.

There is basically nothing physical in your life, excluding your body, that can't be subpoenaed.

This is not a reasonable definition of ownership.

> If some person you dislike got robbed in front of your house, you could be compelled to help them by supplying your video footage

Let me get this straight. You're so concerned about your property rights being absolutely privileged in such a way that when social institutions gathering evidence for the crime of robbery -- a crime where relevant law is meant to deter/address the violation of property rights -- come knocking at your door, you want to assume the privilege of telling them "nah, I don't like that guy, screw him and screw his property rights and nothing I own will be involved in the enforcement of laws regarding those property rights"?

I think what this highlights is that, even where rights are important, they are rarely unqualified privileges. In the reality of any sufficiently complex system, corner cases or even conflict between worthwhile values exist. A legal system that cannot obligate people to produce relevant evidence for a case will likely be without power to make judgments based on evidence or enforce its laws, including those meant to protect property rights, which are the reason you can be said to "own" things at all.

In order to have a functioning legal system, there needs to be power to compel people to do things. Not every arbitrary thing -- good legal systems have limits too -- but you'll never be able to have rule of law without some power to compel.

You could get the same effect by… not saving any recordings you know?

It’s essentially creating an attractive nuisance if you do and then want to refuse to hand them out.

You can be compelled to turn up in court and testify about a crime you saw, even if it was nothing to do with you. How's that different?