I don't understand the goal of a "data-free world." What could that possibly mean?

This draft seems to have picked up the idea of environmental regulation, and then proceeded to use the metaphor rather literally, as though the problem of water quality and the problem of privacy preservation were alike at the molecular level. Like the /;data-free world," however, this seems to depend upon a correspondence at the wrong conceptual level. Recognition that externalities demand the imposition of social standards of care and that consent to transaction is not a sufficient basis for the allocation of legal duties and liabilities is what we need from "environmental law," in order to understand not only what is wrong with not having data protection law, but also what is wrong with having the kind that European societies (but not the US society) have. That having been understood, we might be able to take the analysis in a direction you have offered here, but we would be able to remove first a number of confusions you cannot avoid given the logic of the present draft.