I didn't claim it's an enthusiastic one. My claim is that all the sudden "privacy-is-not-enough" arguments make it seem like some breach happened without our agreement. To use your words, it's almost as if they're complaining about airport security/searches because we were never very explicitly warned about it.

If we don't do security checks or don't agree to some ToS, we'll be left out (of flights or online services). How many people would do that in exchange for 'ownership'?

Also, if you go to a bakery for couple months buying the same bread. Would you sue the bakery if the seller automatically knew what you're going to get, after two months of transactions, and wrapped your favorite bread for you with a smile (not the Amazon smile)? Is that also data you should own and encrypt?

Does your physician need your consent on every visit to unlock your health information in his brain and be able to follow up?

Imagine that this comment I'm writing here is locked into my very own encrypted vault and HN needs my consent every time someone wants to read it (although I used HN to write it!). I cannot imagine how would the discourse evolve this way.

So justifying 'ownership' as the future solution using invalid argumentation by analogy isn't solid. A more solid approach is to actually build products with well-enforced privacy and transparency rather than just theorize about it. Or even build and experiment with the 'ownership' proposition and see how would that play out.