Guest 2

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.

It risks institutionalizing it, making it transactional.

And that poll you found, 79% expecting a gap between the privacy rich and privacy poor.

That's telling.

Exactly.

What are you hiding?

That subtle pressure is part of the coercion problem.