> They're not too stupid, they just don't prioritize the way some here do
While I agree that most people aren't stupid, I would argue that many people are ignorant. They simply don't know why they should care, probably due to a lack of understanding what it means for a company to have a copy of their data, and what that could enable those companies to do and figure out.
> While I agree that most people aren't stupid, I would argue that many people are ignorant
If that's true, solve that problem directly via education and enforcing transparency. There are also other solutions such as grants w/ stipulations, enforcement of existing fraud statutes, etc.
Let's assume there are 3 segments of people here: 1) the ignorant, 2) the non-ignorant accepting, and the 3) non-ignorant unaccepting. We have to stop letting #3 (arguably the smallest group but probably consisting of most here) run the show wrt to laws. There are too many consequences to pieces of legislation that all of us business owners have to conform to regardless of whether it is targeted to us. Most often we don't even recognize the consequences because we are so focused on how good we're going to do and how much we're going to help everyone. I dub it digital security theater.
Of course it doesn't always apply. Of course car regulations (or the aforementioned airline ones) have purpose. Not sure why this physical safety equivalency keeps coming up. You have to take each problem at its face instead of bending to analogies and what-ifs. We have to stop guessing and throwing legislative spaghetti at walls hoping it sticks. There are paths to arrive at legislation, but it's not the first brick in the path.
While I agree that most people aren't stupid, I would argue that many people are ignorant. They simply don't know why they should care, probably due to a lack of understanding what it means for a company to have a copy of their data, and what that could enable those companies to do and figure out.