Protection of Privacy in Japan

You say that things need to happen that you know aren't going to happen. This is not a very effective form of essay: the reader can only conclude that you aren't serious.

Your response was to remove from the above paragraph the parenthetical in which you acknowledged that what you are talking about isn't going to happen. As though my objection could be met not by further rethinking your argument, but by removing the evidence that you know what's wrong with it. That's not improvement: that's radical disimprovement in the direction of reduced intellectual integrity.

I also wrote:

You are aware that a conversation about privacy based on "my personal data," doesn't really capture what is changing or how data science will actually affect our environment, as the machines begin to train us.

Here you did nothing. Which is too bad, because that was the best road to actual intellectual improvement: concentrating not on the issues of bilateral choice, but on environmental regulation of privacy rather than inappropriate models of transactional consent.