I tend to compare all the data created by human activity to the status of
land in Henry George's analysis:
"The term land embraces, in short, all natural materials, forces, and
opportunities, and, therefore, nothing that is freely supplied by nature can
properly be classed as capital. A fertile field, a rich vein of ore, a
falling stream which supplies power, may give to the possessor advantages
equivalent to the possession of capital, but to class such things as capital
would be to put an end to the distinction between land and capital, and, so
far as they relate to each other, to make the two terms meaningless."
So in a sense, to debate whether we should keep our data private at all cost
or whether we should be able to exercise ownership and possibly sell them
away is secondary to preventing them from becoming capital by default. George
is famous for suggesting higher taxation of land when it is used as capital,
which would actually have solved many economic problems of his times, so I
guess that nowadays he would be suggesting to impose heavy taxes on personal
information as well, which are similarly freely flowing from human
activities, since they are not the product of human exertion.
That would ensure that if any of them get legally exploited, that economic
activity will not benefit private entities only but will also benefit the
society from which they emanate. If it is expensive enough, collecting
private information will stop being the default behavior and whether people
choose to sell their private data or not will become their own, personal
choice.
Some people have called George a utopian.
