Earlier quoted context omitted.
To simplify the bookkeeping. When all data about me is mine, everything else falls into place.
This doesn't simply it, it complicates it. With privacy, you are generally looking to prevent the redistribution of facts , but only in specific circumstances. Copyright does a very different thing, where it only prevents the redistribution of more creative expressions, but does so in broad circumstances. If you take the typical data elements that you want to keep private and apply copyright law to them, I think you'…
How is collecting, aggregating, redistributing PII prevented today?
I like that you distinguish voluntary sharing, eg with friends and family.
I'll ponder your point about names (identifiers). There are currently semi-legitimate uses, like political campaigns in the USA have voter files for GOTV (ballot chasing). Which is a ridiculous practice. (I've worked on many campaigns.) So instead of accommodating pathological use cases, I'd rather resolve the paradox by eliminating the practice. In the case of GOTV, compulsory voting would greatly improve voter privacy.
I've been waiting for anyone to criticize my thesis by pointing out the government already knows all. My provisional response remains: If someone's making a buck off my data, I want my cut.
In cases like the CA State's DMV reselling PII, my thesis is that treating my data as an asset, and therefore a liability, would deter that behavior. So relying on disincentives vs prohibition.