Guest 2

But they still argue for distributing the value created back to the individuals collectively.

Give people a slice of the pie they helped bake.

Uh-huh.

That requires these data intermediaries, these MIDs, to act with fiduciary duties.

Legally, yes.

They have to prioritize the data subjects.

So proponents argue you can have regulated markets that actually offer better protection than now.

That's the claim.

If data has clear economic value, maybe everyone involved, buyers, sellers, intermediaries, has more incentive to keep it secure, to maintain trust.

It could drive a more secure system overall.

Oh, absolutely.

That's the regulatory fight.

But the pro market argument is at least this framework creates accountability where none really exists in the current click through consent model.

Mm hmm.

And the immediate concern, the one that jumps out from the sources, is that the price is paid by the most vulnerable.

It basically risks cementing privacy as a luxury good.

Yeah.

Michelle Gilman's work cited in your sources is really powerful here.

She shows how poor Americans already experience privacy differently.

Things like invasive home searches just to get benefits, constant surveillance at low wage jobs, things wealthier people can often just avoid.