> > Are you entitled to a DNA sample from some skin cells that floated in the air while you were having said conversation?

> Yes. Why wouldn't I be. Those DNA are in my body. They might be infecting me in some way. Why would I not be able to inspect them however I want?

So, by that interpretation, we don't have much of a right to privacy.

> > Does that conversation entitle you to know of every other place that person goes that day?

> If I'm with them the entire time then yes. If other mutual friends were with them I'm fully entitled to ask them and they are fully entitled to answer.

I'm not saying you're with them.

> I went to Disneyland with my sister yesterday. I just shared with you that my sister was at Disneyland yesterday. My mom told me she and my sister went to dinner at McDonalds on the east exit of Disneyland after they got out. I just shared with you something my mother told me about my sister. I have broken no laws nor done anything considered wrong AFAIK in any country in the history of the world up to this point.

But what has changed is that one can know with far more precision all of this stuff, at far lower cost, and without your conscious help. That's a very different context that maybe requires some rethinking of our laws.

> Personally I believe the answer is effectively yes and should be yes though I understand it might legally be no in certain places at the moment I believe those laws will eventually be overturned. Why do I hold this position? Because my brain recorded the conversation. So, first off if I have good memory I can dictate the conversation. Second, if I can make a machine to pull that data out of my brain it doesn't feel like the law can tell me I can't. It's my brain and my memory. Further, it's arguably we will enhance brains digitally at some point. First for people with brain disability. At that time it will be trivial for them to digitally extract their memories and being their memories again the law should have no say. In other words, tech will eventually make this question moot. Conversations will be recorded and just like I can tell you that while at Disneyland yesterday my sister said she was going to Hawaii in June (I just shared a lo-fi recording of that conversation with you) eventually I'll be able to do that with hi-fidelity.

You are working from a common, but mistaken, model of how memory works. There is a world of difference between what is recorded in your mind and a full recording of the conversation.

> Let me add I'm a little scared of such a world but I personally see it as inevitable.

It may be inevitable, but I don't think either of us have enough context to determine that. There was a point in time where things like copyright protections seemed impossible, and now they're so etched into our legal structures that we have a hard time imagining a world without them.

> I believe digitally augmenting brains is inevitable and I believe telling people what they can do with their personal memories and who they can share them with is impossible/untenable so that world will come eventually.

Well, we tell people where they can and can't pee, whether they can eat something, where they can't sleep, what they can't take, what they can't kill, etc. The difference between anarchy and society is pretty vast and seems more inevitable than anarchy.