I'm not sure how this reasoning works. Some company making money using your information isn't with intent to hurt an individual, generally speaking. It's rare that such an opportunity even exists.
Get put in a filter bubble? Have your government track you for protesting? Get on the wrong side of grey market price discrimination? Have your access to data and websites revoked?
Parties to a transaction that have no power don't come out ahead.
> To the extent that the individual and the marketer's interests are not aligned, the harm is borne entirely by the individual. It doesn't matter if the intention is to harm the individual
Of course it does. That's the claim. Don't bring up tangential subjects and then try to associate them as if it's a rephrasing.
Facebook hurting you might be because they want the money, but they specifically choose to make money by hurting you, and society. [2][3]
So in the end I don't think it is wrong to phrase it that way. Someone beating you up in exchange for money still has the goal of beating you up.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/health/facebook-psycholog...
[2]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2021.1...
[3]: https://www.aeaweb.org/research/social-media-news%20consumpt...
Just because you don't know how much your data is worth, and may not even know the crime happened, doesn't make it not a crime or not harmful.
Consider voyeurs who take upskirt photos. Even though the victim may never know that data was stolen, it's undeniable that it's an invasion of privacy and often a criminal offence.
Because it’s not actually yours and you didn’t create it. It’s about you which is a critical difference.
If you connect to a web server and it records a standard access log of a timestamp that it received a request from a given IP address, that’s data 100% generated by the server. That’s not “your data” any more than a recording from a surveillance camera at a gas station you frequent is “your video”.
They don't take it. The value of your information is either inherent (is all information inherently valuable somehow?) or in how it can be used. There is no information "staked claim" as with a natural resource. If you don't have the infrastructure and relationships, you can't monetize it... similar to natural resources. Maybe there should be an individual "staked claim" (which is what the GDPR mostly does), but arguing as if it's a given because "I should be able to make money and nobody else should" is not compelling. This is why there are so few laws regarding it and there's the inherent quasi-legal issue of tracking someone's "staked claim" without tracking them.
The Mercer family didn't personally want to kill, imprison, or cripple a bunch of people, but that's certainly what they achieved with their opiod business.
I mean, grandma isn't going to figure this out on her own. She is happy to have a way to get in touch with her grandchildren and has no idea she is being exploited.
