> ...simply (or complicatedly) that we have a way to data once it's lawfully determined it can be should be made available to second and third parties, including the public.
Fine, you show me a way we can do that that does not necessarily entail that the "bad guys" (which explicitly includes law enforcement, unless and until its aims shift from "winning cases" to the actual pursuit of, you know, "justice") can access it, too, and maybe we can meaningfully have that discussion.
But, as long as my choices are "keeping everyone out" or "risking the bad guys getting in," I don't see much difficulty in picking my camp.
That's the big problem. How do we address that? Basically society has to grow up. People and organizations and government will have to learn how to "respect" what's marked off, unless as defined by law, others have access to that data (access to which was available in the analog world -but which does not always match up 1:1 digitally).
It basically amounts to the same "respect" we observe when we don't break through people's windows (even though it's trivial) or how "super users" don't [typically] abuse personal data at companies, etc.
Fine, you show me a way we can do that that does not necessarily entail that the "bad guys" (which explicitly includes law enforcement, unless and until its aims shift from "winning cases" to the actual pursuit of, you know, "justice") can access it, too, and maybe we can meaningfully have that discussion.
But, as long as my choices are "keeping everyone out" or "risking the bad guys getting in," I don't see much difficulty in picking my camp.